| By PreparationG - Apr 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Okay, I know that Jon Stewart has always aptly been able to use the fact that his is a comedy show to excuse the program from any sort of standards for legitimate political discourse...but at this point, we all know that we turn to "The Daily Show" for some of the most insightful commentary on current events available on TV. Not only does the comedy often illuminate the truth behind the story that the Administration or the media is spinning, but the interviews are often ten times more intelligent and interesting and just plain civil than the shouting matches between exasperated pundits that you find on other shows. Stewart is not afraid to ask tough questions of people he clearly disagrees with, but he usually gets there patiently, with a logical train of thought, and certainly never pounces on his guest. If you're in Jon's ideological boat, you usually end up at least understanding where the other guy is coming from, but respectfully disagreeing.
Forgive me, but I hold Stewart to these standards. Which is why Jon's interview with John McCain really disappointed me.
Make no mistake, I'm no McCain fan, nor apologist. As for Jon Stewart, I'd probably have his child, if biologically possible. But even a blindly dedicated fan could see that this interview is a bit warped. For one, it's hardly an interview. McCain barely gets a word in edge-wise. Stewart constantly interrupts him, talking over him so that he can articulate his point first, and win the applause of all his like-minded fans in the audience. The worst part is when they resort to a middle school bicker-fest over what the troops think about the war ("my friends in the army say this"..."oh yeah, well MY friends in the army say THIS"). Stewart's not conducting an interview, he's making a series of blunt, platitudinal points in the cloak of questions, which is PRECISELY the kind of bullying and anti-intellectual grilling for which Stewart and Colbert have prodded Bill O'Reilly. This isn't why I watch the Daily Show--to see Jon Stewart verbally suffocate the people he disagrees with, as his faithful followers cheer gleefully.
Because McCain has historically been a friend of the Daily Show, appearing numerous times and always respected by Stewart, it's safe to say that McCain's continued, unapologetic support of the War has left Jon less patient with him, and endowed with a certain amount of anger that came out all at once on Tuesday night. Stewart's moral indignation has always been at the heart and soul of the humor behind "The Daily Show," but sometimes it gets the best of him, and he ends up looking just plain self-righteous. The Crossfire stunt was one of these times, but I didn't care, because of the sheer balls that it took to do what Stewart did. But I fear that, at least for this interview with McCain, Jon Stewart resorted to the kind of counter-productive discourse for which he chided Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
O'Reilly, by contrast, cuts his guests' (and every now and then, his co-host's) microphones, verbally berates them, questions their sanity/patriotism, and distorts or makes up facts to fit his preconceptions.
Ain't the same ballpark. Ain't the same league. Ain't even the same sport.
Like many politically astute citizens, I am disillusioned by the mainstream media e.g. CNN and FOX, and even periodicals like The New York Times or Washington Post. Surely, they have proven to be in many instances biased, often incomplete in their coverage, or even too conciliatory. Further, there exists a natural conflict of interest when a news source is owned and operated by one of the few major media conglomerates, especially considering these corporations and the individuals therein donate to political campaigns. Indeed, it is a tangled web from which it is difficult to extricate something as simple as "what happened today!"
Many poles from the PEW Research Center illustrate that much of America's youth refrains from news consumption, but those who are attentive get their news from sources like The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. While these shows may offer a few comments that are more refreshing than mainstream commentary or offer a unique perspective, as a whole, I would say they are far from adequate. Aside from the difficulty in offering a comprehensive perspective on an issue or simply having an abundant conversation about a topic in merely 23 min. (whatever the running time of these shows is), I don't see how these shows can offer deeply intelligent commentary. They still have to generate enough viewership (yes, this is implying that the majority of viewers probably aren't overly intellectual or have a breadth of political knowledge) and help turn a corporate profit.
Aside from structural limitations and economic utility, I just don't think these shows can sustain a well-informed populace. Of course, this might not be an expectation of champions of these news sources. Maybe they're celebrated simply as an alternative.
In any event, what would be my recommendation? I would say exploit the internet and use multiple sources, explore alternative news sites, compare them to the mainstream media as well. Further, read history to provide a greater context within which current events should be couched.
Ultimately, elements like time (to consume enough news), intelligence (to make sense of it), and open-mindedness will determine how well one consumes the news, but I see neither the mainstream media or "popular-altenrative" news sources like The Daily Show and the Colbert Report as adequate replacements.
At 22 minutes per show, two shows per night, four nights per week, we're talking about 176 minutes of commentary, usually including about 40-50 minutes of interviews with political leaders, historians, authors, and luminaries. And these interviews are, I think we can all agree, generally of a far higher caliber than the general cable news interview.
And it's ridiculous to argue that insightful commentary cannot come from a television program simply by virtue of their being a simultaneous quest for ratings. The Daily Show was around long before it was particularly popular--it wasn't until after its content began skewing more towards the political satire and less towards just making fun of local newscasters that it attracted its current, fairly devoted following. Colbert's performance at the WH Correspondent's Dinner and the quality of his average broadcast acquit him just fine on the "deeply intelligent commentary" front. There are more than enough television consumers in the US to allow an insightful show, done properly, to maintain a high level of quality and a respectable audience.
As for your argument, there is no way the aggregate of time covered by both The Daily Show and the Colbert Report provides adequate news coverage for a world that never stops turning. Wouldn't the Iraqis embrace only an hour of violence a day, or sub-Sahran Africans a weekend-long respite from River Blindess and malaria? There is too much happening in this world for only one hour to address, in depth anyway.
As for the content of these programs, again, it could be argued - and I would agree - that it is in many instances of a different or refreshing perspective. To say that these shows delve deeply into the issues or offer anything worth founding a sound argument on is potentially irresponsible. Maybe you and any DS/Report apologist should question whether or not your arguments are comprehensive or far-reaching enough.
Rather, turn your attention towards a Zinn, Chomsky, or Chalmers Johnson book or an alternative news sources like Demorcracynow.org, while refraining from The Daily Show or Colbert Report -- I doubt your strength as a news consumer or attentive citizen will suffer in the least.
Ultimately, the most important issue here is what constitutes adequate news consumption for the purpose of a well-informed citizenry. The general ignorance across all demographics can only cripple our democracy, especially when the government is intent on serving its people as little as possible, or even acting deliberately against the populace's well-being for personal gain. While The Daily Show and the Colbert Report come closer to proper information than many other news sources, it is still far from being adequate.
See, this is an argument that I'd have to ridicule, because it's so patently absurd. Do you ever watch 24-hour news networks? Have you ever seen any of them offer more than a few hours of real, actual news in a given day? On CNN, has Jeanne Moos ever done any actual news reporting, or is it always human interest fluff? Does "Fox & Friends" cover important issues, or is it about as news-oriented as "The View"? Do Tucker Carlson and Wolf Blitzer conduct most of their in-studio interviews with experts on pressing global affairs, or are they mostly broadcasting pundits engaging in a non-stop wankathon? Does "the Cafferty File" really do anything more than let an old guy rant and read email for a few minutes an hour? Is the Glenn Beck/Nancy Grace/Showbiz Tonight block on CNN Headline News up to snuff (how about the half-hour loop they run the rest of the day)? In other words, you're expecting a standard from a comedy show that none of the actual news networks can meet, and completely writing off the potential value of said show as a result.
And if we're only focusing on stories that would have an appeal to a nationwide audience, do you really think there is so much to cover that takes so long to explain? I don't need newscasters to define "subpoena" every time one is issued, and I don't need a nightly reminder of the workings of the criminal justice system--I learned that stuff long ago, so they doesn't need to be a part of every story which touches on them. Simply telling me Monica Goodling, a former Justice Department official working for deputy AG Paul McNulty, was given immunity in exchange for testifying before Waxman's committee about the US Attorney firings, is sufficient for me to understand the actual implications of the story, get a sense of the key players involved, etc. Didn't take twenty minutes. Didn't take two.
Wow, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not news reports can summarize the day's events in a short time span. Look, you managed to convey the fact that there's violence in Iraq and malaria in sub-Saharan Africa in under two sentences! Pertinent facts can be relayed quickly and still convey an adequate picture of what's going on in the world--this is the principle behind newspapers, magazines, television news and radio broadcasts. Hell, most newspapers are written for readers between a fifth and eight-grade level of comprehension.
First off, Tone Boy, where the fuck do you get off calling people "apologist" when they're actually offering substantive arguments against your claims? That's a nice ad hominem on your part, and makes you look like a flaming hypocrite for attempting to lecture anyone about tone.
Second, as to the claim you make, a seven minute interview segment can be perfectly adequate for providing a laymen an accurate impression about an issue. Really. And, believe it or not, sometimes the segments relate to previous segments, so the information on a subject is aggregated (so while, for example, Jon Stewart might only spend seven minutes on the US Attorney scandal on Monday, he's already done several segments walking his viewers through the details and pointing out the absurdity of the entire situation--the effect is cumulative). Every news program in America, save for Frontline, operates under the same basic concept: introduce a story, report developments to that story in successive newscasts, and contextualize the details within the overall story narrative formed since day 1. Now, if I want to be an expert on the happenings in the Algerian legislature, I'm going to have to find an issue of the Maghreb Monitor or some similar news source, because I don't expect any newscast to spend any time covering the Algerian legislature, despite the fact that there could be some interesting details there.
Third, I can't help but notice you put one hell of a strawman in there--nobody here is arguing that any one news show, real or fake, is adequate by itself for real analysis of events. As I said above, man cannot live on bread alone. A variety of sources should be used to gather information, but there's no harm in letting the best political satire on television form part of the overall impression. You seem to disagree with that idea, but have yet to make a coherent case as to why you disagree.
Are you actually trying to argue that Amy Goodman covers the news in-depth? Because you're wrong--she covers SOME news in-depth, and completely bypasses most of it, which is exactly what you were bitching about the Daily Show doing. I can't learn what the Dow's closing numbers were, or how my city commission voted, or how tensions between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil rebels are flaring up again, simply by listening to Democracy Now. Nor can I learn much about current events from books, which, you might have realized, don't actually update themselves with current information on a daily or weekly basis. (And, FYI, while you're attempting condescention, I have both Zinn and Chomsky on my shelves, as well as Dubose, Ivins, Franken, Carville, Merle and Earl Black, DeTocqueville, JS Mill, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Theda Skocpol, Hobsbawm, back issues of 'Foreign Affairs'...actually, my library is pretty damned impressive on the whole. I would wager that I'm both better read than you and better able to understand what it is I've read than you.)
So you're saying...you AGREE with me that there needs to be variety in the news consumed by a citizen in order for them to be well-informed? Because then why the hell did I just have to wade through so much logically incoherent and incredibly insulting tripe? At no time has ANYONE on this thread, despite your assertion, claimed that they think the Daily Show is adequate by itself as a news source.
Look, I don't know what the hell your bone of contention was with my original argument, but let me walk you through this, because, apparently, despite your love of Chomsky and Zinn, you suck at critical reading:
And for pointing all that out, I had to put up with your sanctimonious bloviations about "tone," followed by strawmen and ad hominems.
I think, since I'm bound to receive another flogging for my dreadfully uncivil tone (hey, you're the one who's name-calling, after all), that I should just go ahead and say that you're profoundly bad at forming arguments, a condescending jackass, and intellectually lazy. You tried to pick an argument with your initial post, you succeeded, and then you threw a tantrum when I pointed out that your argument was mostly pointless and illogical. Way to play like a big boy!
Seriously, if you can't refrain from name-calling, if you can't handle your writing being subjected to scrutiny and criticism, and if you can't take someone pointing out your (glaring) weaknesses, then you need to take your thin skin and get off the blogs for awhile. Go knit or something. Maybe go rent a copy of the "Daily Show: Indecision '04" dvd, and try laughing at the world for a change, instead of just listening to it laugh at you.
My overriding qualm with TDS and CR are not that they claim to achieve what CNN and FOX fail to accomplish, but the reliance upon TDS and CR that many young Americans have. As I’ve stated numerous times: relative to the other shows, they do have value, though in and of themselves they are deficient. Further, an hour of news coverage is not adequate. Many issues, especially international ones, force (or should) an American viewer to see the issue from the perspective of the culture in question. Maybe you’re of such a superior intellect and bear so much knowledge as to need only an introduction to the issues, though most of our fellow citizens need more.
This last point is the gist of my argument -- What is best for the American people. I don’t care what you do, what you know, or how you approach the news, JR. To wage personal attacks against one another is frivolous and counterproductive. Such impertinence is part of the nature of our current political system and it has advanced the “greatest country ever” (as many people claim) not nearly as far as it should be. Rather, I will defer my attention to more important, timeless issues.
Or perhaps I'm simply capable of remembering previously learned information better than you, because I'm not so obtuse as to think that every detail of every story need be repeated every time on every related newscast, and that not every little thing to happen in the world is "newsworthy" enough to warrant a spot on a national broadcast. And I'm also not illiterate enough to think that anyone was arguing for an exclusive news diet of Comedy Central, or that any one news source is sufficient for a news consumer to develop fully informed pictures of events.
But thanks for a very enjoyable session of condescention, logical fallacies, strawmen, ad hominems, and all-around poor argumentation. And I'm sure that timeless issues will greatly benefit from similar analyses.
As to the notion of one consuming news exclusively from one source, I never extracted that point from any of the texts in question; rather, I suggested these sources dominated the news consumption of some people and such a situation was incomplete. It was a point that developed from other points being discussed.
Overall, you proved yourself a lout of the most Ann Coulterish sort. You displayed less of an inclination to explore the issue for the sake of achieving a fair, balanced, and enlightening discussion; in stead, you opted to attack my intellect, argumentation skills, and, yes, ability to read, all based on a casual, off-the-cuff discussion. In point of fact, you - quite literally - know nothing about me yet presumed to from a brief encounter.
See, in my youth I've arrived at a very critical realization: Intelligence is not inherently virtuous. Rather, virtuous ends produced by intelligent means can render intelligence virtuous. I know that despite my personal intellect, I must handle myself in a certain way and act within the bounds of productivity, morality, and community, rather than attempt to bully people around - such an approach to life, discussion, and politics is potentially unbecoming of anyone worthy of democratic values. You however, JR, don't seem to care and would prefer to try to prove yourself intellectually superior -- a most unsavory act. If you'd like, as a sign of good will, I'll send you a moist towel and some lotion to enjoy that mighty intellect of yours, as well as a first aid kit for you to offer the next person to try to push around.
Every single charge you've leveled against me more than applies to you--you made assumptions about my intellegence, you offered personal attacks, you impugned my literary background (apparently in an attempt to promote your own sense of intellecutal superiority--yet another example of rank hypocrisy on your part), and you neglected to respond to most of the points of criticism I offered, instead throwing a hissy fit befitting the shrillest WATB.
Andrew, you've managed to simultaneously make me feel intellecutally superior and bored to tears with your drivel. That's quite an accomplishment for someone as incoherent as yourself. You should feel proud. So, as a sign of goodwill, I hereby offer a prayer that you manage to avoid future situations wherein you vainly attempt to argue a meaningless point against people with whom you neither fundamentally disagree nor have any insights to offer.
Grow up, stop trying so hard, learn to accept when someone has validly criticised your weak and vapid arguments, and try to learn the difference between "poles" and "polls."
I would like to make aware your creation of my judgments against you. Maybe it is the nature of the written word (or the words written here) to sometimes not convey intonation or point; but, I never accused you of most of what you said I did. Personally, I don't care about your reading ability, mental capacity, or library. If I were to spend the majority of my time with such concerns, I would lead a meaningless life.
As for your claim to intellectual superiority, even if you were, I would not care. Not only do I have a greater raw intelligence than the majority of Americans, but I am intellectually self-aware. I know what skills I have, which I don't, and I what I need to do to accomplish my goals.
More important, the issue of establishing one's intelligence relative to that of another in and of itself is a waste of time. It is a concern for those of no history, humanity, or purpose. Realize, JR, you are an insect like the rest of us. And that we are all insects is a point intertwined with my attention towards what does and does not qualify as proper news coverage and consumption. The point is what best contributes to society, community, and humanity. If you cannot make this connection, then all those books and brains you "pride" yourself on are all for not.
Anyway, I'm done. You can have the final word if you'd like.
You, on tone:
You, same post:
You, on intellectualism and sourcing:
Earlier on the thread:
You, on detail in reporting:
You, shortly thereafter:
(NOTE: "depth" is so different from "detail" when discussing reporting? Perhaps you'd care to refine your terms, since "depth" to me implies thicker description from additional detail, and not just more people discussing the same thing with additional biases injected into the discourse)
You, in response to numerous points raised by me with regard to the issue:
You, later, on proper conduct in a discussion:
And, in conclusion, a comparison of your statements to the findings of one of the Pew "poles" you cited:
You:
Pew:Link
So, in addition to your frequent self-contradiction, we also have you citing Pew polls to try and prove the opposite of the Pew's own findings concerning news consumption.
Sigh.