The day Jon Stewart quit: Why “The Daily Show” isn’t the satire America needs
Jamie Kilstein and Allison Kilkenny, Salon (book exerpt):
The first comic Jamie ever saw live before deciding to dedicate his life to stand-up comedy was Jon Stewart at Carnegie Hall. Actually, thats not true. His first stand-up show was The Amazing Johnathan at the Stress Factory. But which sounds more romantic? Honestly? Political satirist at the most prestigious venue in Manhattan, or the yelling prop magician in New Brunswick, New Jersey?
He still remembers the show fondly. Watching Jon pace the stage with a tiny microphone talking politics while saying the F-word in a place designed for the most beautiful music in the world. There was still hope.
newsfailSee, there was a time in America when Jon Stewart, the host of The Daily Show, was for many Americans the most trusted name in news. Not the most trusted name in comedy, but news.
That time has passed.
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/18/the_day_jon_stewart_quit_why_the_daily_show_isnt_the_satire_america_needs/
It causes me no pain to post this, as I've always thought Stewart to be overrated. Colbert is the much better satirist. In fact, I wish it were Jon taking over for Letterman in two months.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It seems to start with the assumption that Stewart should be an activist leader, rather than a comedian with a TV show. and then it attacks stewart for... well... not being that. Even though it repeatedly acknowledges that Jon also acknowledges he's just a funny guy with a camera in front of him.
It's like the writer decided to write an "angry" article, and used a dartboard to decide who to be angry at, and and then decided what to be angry about by committee. It just comes off as vacuous and half-baked. With a lot of filler in the middle to plump the mandatory word count.
Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)I watch the show because Stewart is a funny guy with a camera in front of him.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,537 posts)trusty elf
(7,403 posts)[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)"Disassemble... is (brain) dead!"
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)and having little success in finding anything. Their main criticism seems to be that the show no longer has a W administration to stand bravely against.
ALBliberal
(2,353 posts)In front of the camera who gets an important message across through comedic satire. As far as the comparison to Colbert goes? Isn't it fantastic to have TWO funny guys that can outsmart any of those on the other side. Our side is the.better and more informed for it.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Like the OP, I think Colbert is even more effective, but I actually really love it when Jon goes on a rant, without the cover of being a character. I usually agree with him.
liberal N proud
(60,349 posts)Screw them!
I will take Jon Stewart and the Daily Show in reruns over this sad hit piece.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)even before Stewart took the helm. I liked Stewart even before he was on The Daily Show (I knew him as a stand-up comedian but became a fan after seeing him on a Sesame Street video my son liked...he was actually pretty good in it!).
The two together have been a good combination for the most part. But have I ever seen him as "the most trusted name in news"? No (see Sesame Street reference above).
At their best, humorists and satirists speak truths that skewer bullshit, pomposity, hypocrisy, etc., but do I turn to George Carlin, Richard Pryor, or even Mark Twain for what's generally considered news? No. They serve a much different purpose than journalists.
I think that was on display during Stewart's notorious visit to Crossfire:
On October 15, 2004, Jon Stewart appeared on the program to promote his book America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction. He criticized the format of Crossfire and the style of arguments presented on the show. He said the program failed its responsibility to the public discourse and indulged in partisan hackery, reducing news coverage of important issues to a series of talking points from both extremes of the political spectrum: "It's hurting America. Here is what I wanted to tell you guys: Stop... You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably." Carlson countered Stewart's criticisms by reading examples of questions Stewart had asked of then-presidential candidate John Kerry during his recent interview on The Daily Show, such as, "How are you holding up?" and "Have you ever flip-flopped?" Stewart argued that unlike Carlson and Begala he was a comedian, not a journalist, and therefore it was not his role to conduct hard-hitting interviews. Begala defended the show on the basis that it was intended as a forum for debate, to which Stewart responded that calling Crossfire a debate show was "like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition." Arguably the most heated moment of the exchange occurred after Carlson told Stewart, "I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.", to which Stewart replied, "You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_%28TV_series%29#Jon_Stewart.27s_appearance
Why the authors of that Salon piece (of crap) ever thought Stewart was some crusading reporter leading a "countercultural revolution" with a punchline makes no sense to me.
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)...and compare Kilborn on CBS at 12:30 to Ferguson.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)It seemed the early success of the show quickly went to his head (which I seem to remember thinking was the reason he left).
Honestly, though, I can't remember much of what he did (but, in all fairness to him, it's been a long while). I do remember thinking that Stewart, once he worked through some nervousness, was an improvement. It would be interesting to see some of those Kilborn episodes now and see what my response to them is after all this time.
I never watched Kilborn's post-TDS show, but I was among those who bashed him for that "joke" he made implying snipers were needed to take out George Bush during the 2000 campaign. While I didn't like Bush at all, I found Kilborn's allusion to assassination repugnant.
Ferguson is also someone I haven't watched regularly, but from what I've seen of him in clips that get circulated around, I like him and think he's better than Kilborn.
In fact, I think Ferguson seems to have even more of an edge and depth to his commentary than Stewart. That's not a criticism of Stewart, just a comparison. Clips I've seen of Ferguson can be brutally honest, especially about himself, in a way that Stewart just isn't.
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)My general conclusion in 2010 was that Jon Stewart was suffering from hipster-style detachment. He didn't want to be a newsman. He didn't want to be a commentator. He wanted to be somebody who could stand aside and take potshots. And I noted down some of the comments he made to Rachel Maddow:
"The one thing I dont have that you have is the ability to really do something about it. ... I think youre in a better game than Im in.
Youre on the playing field and Im in the stands yelling things.
That rally I could have gotten on the field. And people got mad that I didnt. But that was the point. ... That rally was to deflate a bubble and to do what I think satire does best. ... In a weird way its idealistic, but its impotent. ... There is no honor in what I do but I do it as honorably as I can.
If what Jon Stewart does is just dandy, why did he keep saying things like, "You're in a better game than I'm in ... It's impotent. ... There's no honor in what I do."
The cheap shots he took at Occupy Wall Street also bothered me. I suspect there's ultimately a hollowness about him. He doesn't believe in anything. He knows what he's angry about, but he doesn't have anything he's for. And that a fatal weakness.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)John Stewart has always been clear that he's a comedian first and foremost, and when he has ventured into serious criticism of politics it's always milquetoast "can't we all get along" centrism.
We're the ones who saw him as a viable alternative to Fox News and MSNBC.