I’m with Tucker Carlson on Jon Stewart:
Cynics might assume that the fury [behind the excoriation of Cramer] was a pose. Humor requires ironic detachment, and nobody as funny and sophisticated as Jon Stewart could possibly be getting that mad on TV over something so abstract. A fair assumption, but wrong. Stewart really was enraged. It was all entirely, strangely real.
I know this from my own run-in with Stewart, on CNN’s Crossfire a few weeks before the 2004 election. Stewart spent a couple of segments lecturing Paul Begala and me about how we were somehow “helping the politicians and the corporations,” a charge that baffled me then (I’ve never particularly liked either one), as it does now.
Unlike most guests after an uncomfortable show, Stewart didn’t flee once it was over, but lingered backstage to press his point. With the cameras off, he dropped the sarcasm and the nastiness, but not the intensity. I can still picture him standing outside the makeup room, gesticulating as the rest of us tried to figure out what he was talking about. It was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.
Finally, I had to leave to make a dinner. Stewart shook my hand with what seemed like friendly sincerity and continued to lecture our staff. An hour later, one of my producers called me, sounding desperate. Stewart was still there, and still talking.
No one this earnest can remain an effective satirist, and at times Stewart seems like less a comedian than a courtier to the establishment. In August 2004, a week before the Republican convention, Stewart got an interview with then-candidate John Kerry. At the time, reporters covering Kerry couldn’t get closer than the rope line, so the interview qualified as a booking coup.
Stewart squandered it embarrassingly. His first question (after, “How are you holding up?”) was: “Is it a difficult thing not to take it personally” when your opponents are mean?
“You know what it is, Jon?” Kerry replied. “It’s disappointing.”
Four years later, Stewart had become, if anything, even softer. Over the course of a reverential eight-and-a-half minute interview with Barack Obama six days before the election, Stewart failed to ask a single substantive question, much less venture into policy (though, as with Kerry, he did open with, “How are you holding up?”). Instead, like the cable-news morons that he often criticizes, Stewart stuck strictly to the horserace, at one point even resorting to a sports metaphor.
Here’s what I said about Stewart way back in 2004 after his Crossfire soapboxing:
You know what? I’m just gonna say it: I’m bored bored bored of John Stewart. The Crossfire thing was the final straw, the shark jumping. He’s permanently tainted, and from here on out we can only look forward to the long slide into “Remember when that guy was funny.” Sanctimony is death to satire. The last thing I need is the fake news guy thinking he’s King Shit protector of the public interest. Yes, Tucker Carlson is a dick. But we all have eyes. Damn, John. You used to be cool.
My feelings haven’t much changed. The long slide has taken rather longer than I expected, however. At least there’s Colbert!
(Yes, I know it’s ‘Jon’.)
Do you still think that your new colleague at Cato is a dick?
“The last thing I need is the fake news guy thinking he’s King Shit protector of the public interest.”
Why? Are you worse off for Jon Stewart's antics?
I understand not liking Stewart's politics; he's liberal, fine. But his role as media critic has never struck me as particularly liberal.
I'm not surprised that some people find Stewart sanctimonious, or just generally don't think he's funny. But I'm continually baffled by why so many of these people feel compelled to publicly proclaim their distaste for the man. It's just weird. I mean, let it go already!
Right. Because it's totally baffling that people so often publicly state their opinions about influential cultural products on blogs! Did you know that some people aren't happy that the New York Times is making Ross Douthat a columnist? Did you know some people didn't like The Watchmen? It's pretty weird that people say anything at all, when you think about it.
I removed The Daily Show from my 'season pass' on my PVR this week. I've been a daily viewer for a few years but recently it's become less and less watchable. A satirical news show needs to satirize the 'establishment' – it's targets have to be the group in power. The Daily Show seems to have failed to adapt to the changing of the regime. Stewart is spending far too much time harping on his old targets and hasn't really started asking the tough questions (and there are plenty to be asked) of the new administration. The Cheney jokes are rapidly wearing thin now the guy is out of the White House.
I've seen this happen before with satirical comedy shows. When the political landscape changes they fail to adapt and become irrelevant. It happened when the conservatives were finally voted out in England in the 90s. Perhaps we're going to see the rise of some new popular satire to replace The Daily Show.
As you say though, at least we still have Colbert. He seems to be doing a better job of navigating the new political terrain. And he's just plain funnier than Stewart has been for a long time.
It seems to me that Stewart is perfectly consistent – bad 'serious journalism' is the target of both his sincere ire and his comedy. His ire is directed at 'serious commentators' (Carlson, Cramer) and his program is a satire of cable news programs.
He is gentle with non-media types because it's not part of his (self-defined) role to go after him. That is the job of serious journalists. It is Stewart's job to go after bad 'serious journalists', which he does, in whatever forum and with whatever tools. I like Stewart a lot, and in no small part because he restricts his claim to competence. He believes about as strongly in the division of labor as anyone on television (and he'd stand out even more in the blogosphere).
As pointed out by JME, the anger toward Stewart among libertarian types seems bizarrely personal and disconnected from any specific claims against something he's said or done. Stewart's sincere criticism of Carlson is on point, isn't it? Stewart's comedy is usually great, isn't it? What is the problem?
Stewart's job, the task he and Colbert have set themselves to, is to satire the media. Of course they take their jabs at republicans and, less frequently, democrats (and the NRA, people with funny hats, school teachers, etc. etc. etc.), but the bulk of their indignation and jokes are directed at the absurdities of news media.
I don't think anyone felt Jon Stewart's anger at Cramer was a pose, as Carlson suggests. Stewart felt that nobody was holding the media accountable, as he felt in 2004, and he uncharacteristically took Cramer to task for this shortfall. The last time he'd pulled a stunt like this was 5 years ago on Crossfire.
Political satirists should hold politician's feet to the fire when they feel no-one else is. Media satirists have the same responsibility for media corporations and personalities. Stewart does not have the responsibility to ask the hard-hitting questions to politicians, as Carlson suggests. He's a comedian. He happens to be an angry comedian who used his show as a vehicle to try to right wrongs he perceived in the system, but that doesn't then automatically change his role to Serious, Real Newscaster based out of Comedy Central.
s/b “it's not part of his role to go after _them_”, meaning, “non-media types”
but then when people who think stewart is sanctimonious and a tired schtick try to hold his feet to the fire and criticize him via their blogs…they are brushed aside via comments such as:
“But I'm continually baffled by why so many of these people feel compelled to publicly proclaim their distaste for the man. It's just weird. I mean, let it go already!”
and your comment trying to rationalize away the opinions of others.
i see a bit of humorous irony in that.
Well, since Carlson's show was canceled soon after the Stewart exchange, and he hasn't had as good a gig since, yes he is worse off for Stewart's antics.
I also disagree with that “But I'm continually baffled….” quotation. I'm not rationalizing other people's opinions, I'm defending Jon Stewart's right to hold media personalities accountable without then having to redefine his cultural role.
He's a comedian, anyone is welcome to disagree with him who wants to, I won't ever attack them for it. I will, however, defend what I think is a justifiable use of comedy central's air-time.
Anyone who uses The Daily Show as their only source of news and takes everything Stewart says as righteous is watching the show wrong. It augments the real news, and helps the public improve their BS filter when watching an increasingly money, corporate, advertisement-driven media sphere.
Stewart's primary targets – at CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. – are most assuredly still in power.
I also don't see how Colbert has adjusted at all. His target is still O'Reilly and his writers (who have always seemed more leftist than Stewart's) are still going after Ayn Rand and rich people.
I don't see how this is “revenge” for Tucker Carlson.
His shrill little tantrum won't hurt Stewart's career, and it can't help Tucker's “career” either.
Jon Stewart has much in common with that other “comedian” Bill Maher. Unwatchable. We won't see either one poking fun at the current Prez. I guess that's OK, but if Rush Limbaugh is the “voice' of the Republicans, isn't the Democratic party well represented by Messrs. Stewart, Maher and Olbermann?
Believe me when I tell you that I disagree with Rush on many things and I do not listen to his show. I will say that he makes no secret of his leanings. He's a commentator. Maybe it's fair to say that the nature of satire, comedy or even news (as MSNBC does it) has come to resemble commentary and does not have to pretend to be unbiased.
Stewart performs a valuable role. Someone has to hold carnival spruiders like Cramer to account and I think he does a fantastic job. I don't expect him to be 'funny' every time. He's not a joke teller. He's showing people the inside of the sausage factory. All power to him.
Whoa! I retract the last sentence in my previous post, which now seems clearly excessive to me. I was aiming for a genuine expression of bafflement, minus the disdain that clearly came through. Sorry.
But my bafflement remains. As another commenter mentions below, it seems like lots of the animosity directed at Stewart seems disconnected from a genuine critique of “Stewart as media critic”. If you think his criticisms of popular media are boneheaded, fine. Explain why!
But if the criticism of him is more aesthetic (i.e. he's sanctimonious, smug, etc.), then I certainly understand that sentiment, but I don't really understand why it so animates people.
It seems to me that really bad media criticism would inspire more indignation from political bloggers than really bad/off-putting persona or delivery. And this (contra another comment below) is honestly not meant as a _dismissal_ of the sentiment! I just have a hard time relating to that sentiment, and am saying so.
Hopefully this didn't convey any unintended snarkiness…I was hoping for an actual response rather than the sarcasm I got back. Probably mostly my own fault.
Put the sausage factory on MSNBC, not Comedy Central.
“The last thing I need is the fake news guy thinking he’s King Shit protector of the public interest.”
What was true in 2004 is even more accurate in 2009. The lines have been blurred, for various reasons, between news and entertainment and Stewart emodies this to a tee.
I would take it a step further, however. The reason for Stewart's faux populism is not a sense of journalistic integrity (or whatever it is), but a selfish one. Have you seen Viacom stock over the past year? Essentially cut in half like the rest of the media stocks. That's enough to get anyone pissed. And I find it hard to accept Stewart as a populist folk hero while collecting what I'm sure is a 7-figure salary and living in his Manhattan loft apartment where he can weep about Ground Zero. What a sanctimonious ass….
This is off base. Stewart didn't even touch Cheney's Sunday comments and CNBC is pretty much a brand new target. Media criticism has always been the name of the Daily Show game with politics as a secondary target when appropriate. People who think the Daily Show is simply a left leaning, right targeting comedy show have no idea what they are talking about and probably rarely watch the show.
Ok, another person who quite obviously doesn't watch the show. You people are tiresome. Beyond Stewart, where do you get the idea that Olberman and Maher hide their leanings. They clearly do not.
The flaw in the “media criticism” of Colbert and Stewart is that it disproportionately falls short of criticizing MSNBC as the other side of the coin to Fox too often. True, Stewart made a token attempt to shine a lantern on MSNBC's appearance as doppelganger to FNC, but he nevertheless fails to point out the glaring similarities between, for instance, Rachel Maddow vs. Pat Buchanan and Hannity vs. Colmes. Yes, it seems the commonly held wisdom is that liberal bias exists, but that it is the lesser of two evils, indeed a necessary evil if there ever was one. And so while Fox is viewed as a true malice to society, poisoning the synapses of every man, woman, and child, simultaneously eroding the pillars of freedom, knowledge, and truth, MSNBC is portrayed as nothing more than a hapless crew of ne'er-do-well's with the best of intentions and the worst of methods. What's missing in the “satire” is that neither MSNBC nor Fox, or any other cable news network for that matter comes from a place of truth, knowledge, or any particular attachment to real freedom. As I've said before, Stewart is an avowed socialist, and while I wouldn't begrudge a good artist his politics on any other day (Hemingway, Picasso, London, etc.), it seems this one has let his attachment to utopian schemes color his art like a maudlin Thomas Kincaid painting.
It's interesting that most of his defense revolves around “he's a entertainer” but that's what TV is, entertainment. Whether it's Crossfire, CNBC, or O'Reily. Some shows just try harder to be serious than others. Stewart is almost holding back his need to become a serious commentator and when he does and falls back onto “I'm a comedian” is loses it's charm.
“I don't like him.” is not very useful.
Also –
“Sanctimony is death to satire. The last thing I need is the fake news guy thinking he’s King Shit protector of the public interest.”
Jeebus. I refer you to the original satirist – to John Swift's “A Modest Proposal”, and “Gulliver's Travels”. Satire only has heft it engages the public's interest.
“Sanctimony is death to satire.”
Wow does that not make sense in the context of your post. You just quoted approvingly from Carlson saying Stewart was too earnest and then you rail on Stewart for Sanctimony. You do realize those words are antonyms.
But this is what happens when people try to figure out why they don't like Stewart. They turn themselves in loops. The reason they don't like Stewart is because they are part of the group being satirized or as is the case with Will, are hellbent on pushing the fallacy that the Left and Right are equally stupid.
Stewart is a satirist who targets that which deserves to be targeted, that which unwittingly exudes irony. And right now that is primarily Conservatives and their movement along with the ridiculousness of old media. And he does target Liberals quite often. He was not kind to Obama's DVD set gift, he routinely destroys Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and has continually picked on Chris Dodd and John Kerry (at least since he lost to Bush).
Satire is finicky. You can't balance it as some apparently want. If you are good you go where the irony leads you. Stewart is excellent at finding it and that's why his show is as good as ever, I think better, especially now that he doesn't have the crutch of Bush who was so ridiculously easy to make fun of.
My feelings haven’t much changed. The long slide has taken rather longer than I expected, however.
Or rather, hasn't begun yet.
I think Will and Tucker's pieces have the wrong tilt. I don't know Jon, of course, but I think of it more as a “heart on his sleeve” thing. He probably does want to keep his objectivity, but he veers not toward being angry, but just caring.
Still looking for Fucker's balls, Willy? That's a fool's errand.
On the plus side, Fucker hasn't assaulted gay men in public restrooms (in either sense of the phrase) since Stewart castrated Fucker with his own bowtie.
“Sanctimony is death to satire.”
Wow does that not make sense in the context of your post. You just quoted approvingly from Carlson saying Stewart was too earnest and then you rail on Stewart for Sanctimony. You do realize those words are antonyms.
But this is what happens when people try to figure out why they don't like Stewart. They turn themselves in loops. The reason they don't like Stewart is because they are part of the group being satirized or as is the case with Will, are hellbent on pushing the fallacy that the Left and Right are equally stupid.
Stewart is a satirist who targets that which deserves to be targeted, that which unwittingly exudes irony. And right now that is primarily Conservatives and their movement along with the ridiculousness of old media. And he does target Liberals quite often. He was not kind to Obama's DVD set gift, he routinely destroys Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and has continually picked on Chris Dodd and John Kerry (at least since he lost to Bush).
Satire is finicky. You can't balance it as some apparently want. If you are good you go where the irony leads you. Stewart is excellent at finding it and that's why his show is as good as ever, I think better, especially now that he doesn't have the crutch of Bush who was so ridiculously easy to make fun of.
And another thing. Colbert and Stewart are two peas in a pod. I don't really see how you can like one but hate the other. They target the same things, albeit Colbert uses a persona and more parodic elements. But the jokes are nearly identical if one cares to deconstruct them. And nothing makes a joke funnier than deconstruction.
I guess many of us are simply waiting for Mr. Satire to castrate, or throw anything but a puffball at a liberal/Democrat on his show. It's has been and continues to be a long wait. It's not that myself or news organizations are looking to The Daily Show for “cues on integrity”. It's just that the lampoons are only aimed at the right side of the political fence.
“We won't see either one poking fun at the current Prez.”
Stewart already has, several times. You should try actually watching the show before pretending you are qualified to comment on it.
Stewart was santimonious that time on Carlson's show; but at least he wasn't a doink in the morning.
True … and as someone intimately familiar with the entertainment industry, I can say that when a genuinely funny or insightful criticism of liberalism is proposed, higher-ups scoff and forbear.
I was at something soppingly hip as an evening of improv at the Upright Citizen's Brigade (great observation ground for the Stuff White People Like crowd) in Hollywood, and one of the headliners of the evening was a comedian portraying a rich Republican senator from Ohio, who took questions from the crowd. That's the tired shit that passes for cosmopolitan political satire.
It's called advocate journalism. The Daily Show makes no pretense of disavowing certain basic assumptions about politics. But if you're tempted to view the holding of such assumptions as sectarian or stupid, and not, say, a more honest way to report news or do comedy, then I suppose you'd find Stewart's behavior surprising.
“Sanctimony is death to satire.”
Wow does that not make sense in the context of your post. You just quoted approvingly from Carlson saying Stewart was too earnest and then you rail on Stewart for Sanctimony. You do realize those words are antonyms.
But this is what happens when people try to figure out why they don't like Stewart. They turn themselves in loops. The reason they don't like Stewart is because they are part of the group being satirized or as is the case with Will, are hellbent on pushing the fallacy that the Left and Right are equally stupid.
Stewart is a satirist who targets that which deserves to be targeted, that which unwittingly exudes irony. And right now that is primarily Conservatives and their movement along with the ridiculousness of old media. And he does target Liberals quite often. He was not kind to Obama's DVD set gift, he routinely destroys Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and has continually picked on Chris Dodd and John Kerry (at least since he lost to Bush).
Satire is finicky. You can't balance it as some apparently want. If you are good you go where the irony leads you. Stewart is excellent at finding it and that's why his show is as good as ever, I think better, especially now that he doesn't have the crutch of Bush who was so ridiculously easy to make fun of.
And another thing. Colbert and Stewart are two peas in a pod. I don't really see how you can like one but hate the other. They target the same things, albeit Colbert uses a persona and more parodic elements. But the jokes are nearly identical if one cares to deconstruct them. And nothing makes a joke funnier than deconstruction.
I really find it annoying when people earnestly compare MSNBC to Fox. MSNBC has 2 hours of lbieral programming, one hour of which is hosted by a really smart and engaging liberal (Maddow of course). Meanwhile it has a 3 hour morning show hosted by a conservative. Conservative programming actually outnumbers liberal programming on the “liberal” network. And then you compare Colmes to Buchanan. Buchanan is on Rachel's show only sparingly. I haven't seen him in weeks. I can't believe I have to refute this.
And of course, Stewart and Colbert aren't balanced in their attacks so they must be biased. The fallacy of the middle again. Balance above all. Wholly unconvincing.
What all this kerfuffle tells me is that we're very, very limited in our ability to enjoy work that we're opposed to politically. Show me a true-blue liberal who thinks Jon Stewart is boring. If you agree with him, the earnestness is sweet and invigorating; if you don't, he comes off as dull and soft on the administration.
I'm not bothered by Stewart's perspective, but rather how terribly simplistic and unfunny it is in the context of a comedy show. His schtick is incredibly thin (at least he's not making the GWB voice anymore), and anytime they try to make a point that goes any deeper than showing clips of people contradicting themselves, they end up hugely simplifying complex subjects (again while being incredibly unfunny).
Notice Stewart has on Cramer (a democrat and Obama supporter) to attack him ONLY AFTER he criticizes Dear Leader.
Why is Stewart not going after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac full -bore? He should be attacking the media for covering up the connections between democrats and these two institutions. Stewart isn't a media critic, he is a shill for democrats; that was beyond obvious by the time of the Kerry interview and it's almost farcical at this point.
LOL! If you mean liberal, left wing media criticism then maybe.
“…increasingly money, corporate, advertisement-driven media sphere…”
Yes, because the internet and more forms of media have made things more corporate. Do you live in reality?
omg, like one or two criticisms of the messiah!
There are hundreds of things to criticize Obama and his administration on. The only thing he seems to be good at is finding tax cheats. Stewart's show should be anti-Obama all the time with what he has been up to, but that doesn't mess with Stewart's bias.
err…'mesh'
He is showing them a tiny piece of the sausage factory while ignoring huge sections and sweeping those hairs and fingernails under the rug.
Liberals are never biased whereas conservatives always are.
Is it any wonder libertarians hate the main-stream media and their defenders? As outside observers, the liberal hypocrisy is astounding.
Then why do so many people (see above comments) defend Stewart and say he is objective or that he criticizes both sides?
Is it just that so many in his audience are brain-dead and don't understand how liberal he is?
Overall, Stewart is a hack. Even TMZ busted him on being very soft on Obama.
Will, you're too cool for school.
Back down on earth, CNBC really is full of shit, and nobody was calling them on it. Is it now cool to look at 24 hour-cable and identify with them against all the elitists, and too-earnest cultural commentators?
Maybe Will is trying to stake out the Andy Warhol position. Or maybe it's solidarity with fellow hipsters and fixie riders?
Putting forward transparently stupid conspiracy theories is the best marker for someone not too bright and, even worse, a dupe.
FWIW, I was a lifetime conservative and Republican, only recently migrated to independent. I measure very centrist on the on-line politicalcompass.org test
And I don't mean to say that I find Jon's caring totally appealing, but it doesn't actually strike me as anger.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with commenting on cultural products. I guess what jme was saying, was that he doesn't agree, and isn't convinced by your arguments that Stewart is bad or unfunny in various ways.
I agree that Stewart's sanctimony potentially undermines his humor. When he appeared on Crossfire, I thought his days were numbered. But as it turns out, I've found him regularly funny since. Yes, his liberal politics make him blind to many liberal Democratic silliness. I wish he were less partisan. But he isn't totally blind: his bit on the similarity of Obama's language and Bush's language on the Iraq war was pretty spot on.
I do think his latest bit on CNBC has been, while not perfect, pretty damn good. As it turns out, there are a ton people on various blogs who knew all along that Jim Cramer and CNBC were jokes. At least they've been saying so in comments sections of blogs I've read about the Stewart-Cramer dustup. But actually I think many people did have the view that CNBC gave fairly accurate news, but even if it was only CNBC and its workers who thought its reporting was trenchant, well, I don't see why Stewart ought to be faulted for calling them out.
I would say that Stewart has done some really good interviews that have received very little attention. For instance, he's done a good job grilling people like the Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, Bill Kristol, Grover Norquist, Mike Huckabee.
Also, I don't think Tucker Carlson is a dick, but I don't think he's a libertarian, either.
And Ayn Rand and rich people don't, frequently, need “going after”? I'm perplexed by this view that a commitment to free markets and liberty means that we need to somehow give rich people a break.
Rich people suck as much as the rest of us, but they do pretty ok in this society, so poking fun at them is fine by me.
Yes, though I think Stewart is at least accessible to the center, as opposed to say Moore.
That's fair. Though at times he does seem a bit angry. Honestly, I mostly see clips here and there since I really don't find him all that amusing.
The same old stupid criticism of Bush just got old. There was plenty of good criticism to be made, but few of his enemies actually availed themselves of it.
Agreed. Stewart was a lot more likeable when he was attacking powerful people. Now he is just an attack dog for the new regime.
except that Stewart was BANG ON about crossfire. I'll take CNN's new show GPS, over it for “public good”, any day.
Two things going on. First of all, one doesn't have to be “brain dead” to fail to fully account for one's own biases. That's not just a failing of liberals; there are plenty of conservatives, for example, who think that Fox news really is “fair and balanced.”
But also, while Stewart is certainly liberal, I would argue that his most salient charactacteristic isn't his liberalism, but his beliefs about the role of the media. And that point of view is (in the abstract, at least) not an inherently “liberal” one (at least not in the sense people here are using the word liberal). he thinks the media whouldn't just be mouthpieces for the powerful, but should question and challenge the powerful. Now, Stewart is liberal, and that liberalism sometimes bleeds into the media critique, but there are many instances when his media critique is aimed at “liberal” media figures.
I watch almost every Daily Show as my wife likes it.
I have yet to see him criticize Obama. He has made fun of Obama supporters, Democrats in Congress, Joe Biden, and even press time spent on Michele Obama's fashion sense, but not the one.
I voted for Obama, news.
And, so far, he hasn't done anything I'd criticize him for.
Why do I get the feeling that I could “shorter” most of the critiques aimed at Stewart here as “Jon doesn't share my point of view, therefore he's a dick?” Some folks dress it up as “he's not funny!” – but that manifestly untrue assertion is a pretty flimsy basis for a substantive criticism. Carlson's opinion is obviously tainted, and really ought not be the basis for any sort of opinion regarding Stewart.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Stewart was expressing a sincere opinion, both in the case of CNBC/Cramer, and of Crossfire. I happen to think he was right on both counts – and I think that that's really what ought to the topic of a debate like this, instead of these weird, ham-handed swipes at his comedy chops or his seriousness.
Did anyone catch Stewart's coverage of the burmese pythons either last night or the night before? It wasn't the funniest thing ever on the show, but it was quite funny and does not hinge on political viewpoint. This is true of much of the content of the show.
The show is liberal-left-ish in its bias. I'm sure this riles people. It doesn't make it unfunny.
In any case, Jon Stewart has never been The Funny Thing About The Daily Show. Nor was Craig Killborn before him. The correspondent segments have always made the show what it was — Stewart's bits rise and fall, and his interviews are often painful to watch.
The Colbert Report is another animal. It does, of course, hinge on how funny you find Colbert's persona. It's completely about him — that's the joke, which you either like or don't, which either works or doesn't.
I understand “sanctimony is death to satire,” but we're talking about a very fine line, are we not? Think of Swift or Twain. Or think of the best South Park episodes. Or think of Colbert savaging the DC journalist set (and Bush-Cheney) at the Correspondents Cotillion a few years back. The line between these and earnest, shrieking sanctimony is extremely thin — as it needs to be, or we're just in the realm of insult comedy rather than satire. It's one thing to ridicule someone's folly, quite another to issue the insult on behalf of a better (tacit) alternative. The latter is satire.
And whoever said sanctimony and earnestness are antonyms at the top of this thread is wrong. No they aren't! Both denote a person clutching tightly to a set of beliefs devoutly held.
i agree with certain commenter that Carlson's show was canceled soon after the Stewart exchange, and he hasn't had as good a gig since, yes he is worse off for Stewart's antics.
i agree with certain commenter that Carlson's show was canceled soon after the Stewart exchange, and he hasn't had as good a gig since, yes he is worse off for Stewart's antics.