|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I wanted to revive the debate concerning Jon Stewart and the McCain interview, both because the last post ironically devolved into the very kind of uncivil bickering I originally held Stewart accountable for ("I've read more books than you" instead of "I know the troops better"), and because of this brilliant Bill Moyers interview with Stewart, in which he mentions and kind of defends kind of doesn't how he acted with McCain.
Here' my take: It's definitely a great interview, and Stewart's eloquence and intelligence only makes me love him more, but you
notice that he ultimately compares the McCain interview to the kind of counterproductive "dialogue" that Congress and the White House are having over the spending bill. Also, his assertion that all he was
trying to do was simply contemplate "is this really the trading of
talking points we're going to have over Iraq?" is just a rouse,
because in imitating that debate you by default imitate a side on the talking points battle. He may try to convince us that that was the
rhetorical meta-subtext of the interview, but what we end up seeing is Stewart and McCain trade off talking points. People seem to love the interview because they feel like they haven't seen someone cut through the war support bullshit like Stewart does, but to me he's offering the same counterpoint that you'd find in a debate about the war between Carville and Novak on CNN....except it's coming from Jon Stewart. This is the problem with only getting your news from the
Daily Show--you end up losing scope of where Jon is innovative and
intelligent and unique in his perspective... and the rare moment where he's just like everyone else on TV. Maybe, ironically, that's why his interview has been so apparently newsworthy.
Also, he can't simultaneously try to convince me that he's not a
social critic and then end the interview with Moyers by saying that he
believes his program offers a view of current events, in "a certain
context." Placing anything relevant to today's society or political
landscape in a certain context, especially when framed with humor (the punchline of which always has a point), IS the DEFINITION of
social/political criticism. That said, I understand the game he's
playing by not defining himself that way. But come on, if you go on
"Crossfire" and tell Begala and Carlson that they're "hurting
America," you're definitely some sort of socio-political critic.
Don't get me wrong, i love jon stewart and this interview only
reinforces that love. But i think he's a populist preacher posing as a
jester--a disguise that's been most effective for him. And when he
ditches that to pose as a pundit, the disguise wears a little too
thin.
!
- Stewart: so...Iraq.
- McCain: joke joke joke.
- Stewart: No seriously, Iraq.
- McCain: Stump speech about how we need to stick it out.
- Stewart: Aren't we diminishing Iraqi suffering?
- McCain: But, remember, Bush is dumb and Harry Reid is misguided.
- Stewart: Didn't Reid mean that we need a diplomatic solution?
- McCain: We need to win the war.
- Stewart: yeah, but-- timetables!
- McCain: You mean, "surrender."
- Stewart: You mean, "pressure"?
- McCain: No, "surrender."
...at this point, the interview totally devolves into bickering, but its worth pointing out that McCain was the one to start up the ridiculousness. I think that if the Senator had come to the interview with honest answers instead of stump speeches, the interview would have gone a lot better. Stewart was definitely asking tough questions, ("defend everything the Bush administration has ever said! NOW!") but were they loaded questions? I don't know. McCain should have been able to deflect these questions if he wants to be president. Sure, they have an ideological tilt, but Stewart has shown an openness to other viewpoints, and I think he would have listened to an real response. If the question is based on factual and logical grounds—"you often say this talking point, explain it"—its more akin to good journalism than punditry.
I also don't know if Stewart was offering the same points as the elitist, secular-progressive, liberal media punditocracy. Like on the "support the troops" position, his argument wasn't that the troops don't support the war, but that they are profoundly non-political. He didn't take the Carville-ish position of "the troops I know hate Bush," but that, well, soldiers and soldiers and "the soldiers' view is a different point [from the debate about policy]." That’s a pretty nuanced argument that we don't hear very often, probably because it doesn't support the pro-war or anti-war side in this debate. Questions like that are also exactly the inquiries that the media should ask more often in its role as government watchdog.
I guess I watched this interview in a different light than you did. McCain came in sprouting nonsense, and Stewart challenged it. And as McCain got defensive, I think Stewart was justified in getting more aggressive. Stewart conceded that the tone of the interview could have been better, but not the content itself—he asked tough, unique questions that aren't usually asked of politicians. It could have been nicer, but it couldn't have been better journalism. I totally agree with you, though, that he needs to get out from behind the shield of comedy—he's a serious journalist in his own way, and he needs to accept that role. Whether it comes with any extra responsibility is unclear, (I mean, do we hold Bob Novak more accountable than Jon Stewart?) but I think he has a responsibility to his fans to be honest about what he is doing. But he's definitely not a "populist preacher"—sure, he may be opinionated, but he's also searching for a discussion and the truth. And that, incidentally, is what constitutes good journalism.
This is from the findings of that much-cited Pew Center poll about audiences for different programs and their knowledge of general news:Link
On what is the assumption that the Daily Show's audience doesn't follow the news from other sources based? Has this been established elsewhere?
It may come from people misreading the show's number of viewers. Maybe it's been reported that those shows draw in more viewers overall than other news shows and some have taken this to mean that more people watch this for their news even if it just means that those shows may be the ones that bring in a larger audience who receive their news from many different places?
Also, just based on any given night of watching that show, I think it's easy to understand why any one who isn't really into political issues would really not care much for the show and would not understand many of the jokes anyway.