Yes, Stewart's great, but...
Monday, September 8, 2008 at 2:58AM ARTICLE: Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?, New York Times, By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, August 15, 2008
While I agree with the article's laudatory tone, meaning I see the void in our national discussion caused by venal politics and a sensationally stupid mainstream media and I appreciate how the "Daily Show" fills that void (Colbert is even sharper, but requires more internal filters to catch all the comedic angles), it still saddens me greatly that this is the best solution out there right now.
I'm the last guy to argue against funny. It's my essential lubricant. But this is a sign of a disaffected public, and I find that very worrisome in this day and age. Too much is at stake globally right now for such a crisis in leadership to exist.
Jon Stewart should be trusted to be who he is, but as I've often heard him comment, he really shouldn't be elevated beyond the satire in our national dialogue. We simply should be doing better to inform, leaving the entertainers to entertain.
I'd admit it in a heartbeat: Stewart would probably do a better job hosting a presidential debate than anybody else out there. But wouldn't it be nice to laugh without cringing?
In the end, I blame the Boomers. They recreated the national acrimony of Nixon's era, which is what they grew up with so they're like a dog going back to its vomit. That's why Stewart and Colbert rule, just like the political comics of that era did.
Reader Comments (13)
The Daily Show's (and by default, Stewart's) bias is against stupidity or whatever makes for a good gag. They accidentally cover news on the show because Washington provides so much ammo for them.
Is the real news out there about oil, Iran, China, etc? Yup. But who subscribes to the Economist, FT, etc. where the real news is actually at?
While still very funny at times, there is less and less funny stuff on TDS and more and more ridicule. It comes off as cynical and simple-minded.
I agree that Colbert walks a much finer line and it's far more entertaining to watch his balancing act. I especially like the interviews. Colbert finds the funny on both sides of the issue.
Short story: Stewart makes me laugh at the shortcomings of other people. Colbert makes me laugh at my own.
How is anyone expected to take the MSM seriously when stuff like this happens?
Where is the screaming outrage? Sure, few percent agree that the Cheney administration is on the right track, but not the vast majority. You can write books on Serious topics all you want, but even giving the small amount of acceptance to unwinnable wars and bailouts for cronies at large investment firms is so far gone that the only defense mechanism is comedy.
Without Jon Stewart my head would have exploded long ago!
The boomers came by their "national acrimony" due to Johnson sending tens of draftees to Vietnam, where thousands were getting killed. That was like a traumatic amputation, not something you can just "move on" from. It was a brutal break in the implicit contract between the government and the people to not waste their lives. If Iraq had been eating up American young men like Vietnam did, we'd have seen major violent resistance to the government, at least as bad as we had circa 1968-72. Nixon put a tourniquet on the stump by ending the draft. But the wound to our public life and our public attitude toward the government, and trust in the government, was permanent.
It is not just a matter of Boomer attitude. The relationship between government and people was sent into a new streambed. We are 40+ years downstream on that different course.
In any case, it is probably a return to the more traditional pattern. 1932-1968, the New Deal, World War II, Ike's steady hand, and Kennedy's New Frontier idealism -- that era was an unusual one in terms of trust in government power to do positive things. Much of that trust was, in retrospect, misplaced or inflated.
I helped manage a campaign for a County Executive of the country's 25th largest county and we wrote a 300 page document of what we hoped to accomplish and supplied it in printed format to anyone requesting a copy called "Closest to the People" - the election was a cake walk. I'd like to see that implemented on a national level.
But in the end it is still the USA and I love her. We get what we ask for in most cases and make the best of it.
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
News is one area where economic factors seem to be degrading the product. The stories that get ratings and therefor sell ad space are at polar opposites from what most would consider 'vital' news (ie: Economic and political fact-presentation and analysis with nuanced historical backgrounds, war coverage, etc). Yet blogs like this one and others that offer just that are increasing in popularity, I guess it's just that no one has yet found the winning formula to bring it back to television?
This pop culture environment the key to Obama's success sp far. After all, he's not running on any well-established record and much of his policy proposals are little more than hot button marketing (Windfall Profits Tax). He's running on an image...lofty slogans and stage props. As a result, people project on him what they want him to be...and project their loftiest ambitions....no different than the overweight middle aged woman who thinks a pair of Nikes will turn her into the next Kerry Walsh or Misty May.
I think your comment that you "blame the Boomers. They recreated the national acrimony of Nixon's era" is very interesting. I am not sure that they recreated the acrimony. I would say that the acrimony has simply never been resolved.
For whatever reasons you think were the cause, America lost the Vietnam war. That loss deeply hurt Americans across the political spectrum. And as politicians are wont to do, they have spun that hurt into anger at other Americans.
You see the response to the Vietnam loss coloring the core arguments pervading today. One side supporting any war until America can achieve victory. The other side supporting only wars that where America has solid justification. Which is strange because the combination of holding the moral high-ground and finishing the job is a pretty traditional definition of the American way.
1. they're designed right now to make money2. most of our fellow citizens are not smart enough to want something better
i hate to repair to 'the masses are asses' argument, but there's no ultimate sense in blaming the media or even politicians when it's the electorate/market that is driving these decisions.
so how do we solve that problem?