Why we’ll never see a Jon Stewart or John Oliver in Israel

[MinM]

Haaretz.com ?@haaretzcom: Why we’ll never see a Jon Stewart or John Oliver in Israel http://htz.li/21A

I deliberately called Oliver a “journalist.” Stewart is also a journalist. They are journalists with comic skills. Journalists who use humor as their main work tool. But they’re not comedians. A comedian intends to make you laugh. A journalist like Oliver uses humor to convey a researched, well-argued message. A funny journalist is immeasurably more dangerous to the government than a comedian. None of Israeli television’s channels have one funny journalist like that. And if there ever is one (there won’t be, but let’s assume for the sake of argument there is), he won’t be a leftist. Because the television chiefs are afraid of the rightist majority’s anger. That’s bad for business. In this industry, “Tel Avivian” is a four-letter word.

Stewart and Oliver don’t teach us anything about Benjamin Netanyahu, but they do teach us something about freedom of speech. When Jon Stewart called the applause for Netanyahu in Congress “the longest blowjob a Jewish man has ever received” there was no Lior Shlein [Israeli comedy show host] beside him to balance him.

In Tuesday’s program Oliver referred to Netanyahu. Unlike Stewart, he didn’t shine and wasn’t funny. He was much more impressive in a monologue analyzing how local authorities in America exploit the poor who owe fines. He presented a well-built argument and examples to demonstrate his point. It was an original answer to an ancient journalistic problem – how to turn important research into an interesting item. The format is simple, and yet you won’t get to see it in Hebrew. Satirical research is something that arouses people to think. It influences. It changes opinions. The captains of Israeli TV don’t want to deal with such a headache...

http://htz.li/21A

[starroute]

1. The article does everything except actually explain "why"

All it says is that there's never been a Jon Stewart or John Oliver on Israeli television and never will be because Israeli television deliberately excludes it. Which is pretty circular reasoning.

It doesn't say who the chiefs of Israeli television are. It doesn't say why they would find programs that make people think a headache. It doesn't say why no Israeli network has spotted an open niche with a potential audience and leaped to fill it.

Is the political situation so delicate that nobody dares to make waves?

Or does it have something to do with the generally uptight nature of Israeli culture? I'm old enough to remember that in the 1950s, there was an expectation that the kind of creativity that had come out of the Jewish communities in Europe and America would be exponentially greater in Israel -- but it never happened. Israel has a booming tech sector and first-rate symphony orchestras, but it's been very short on original creative works. And it's also been short on the generally edgy, outsider-ish nature of the best Jewish art and music and literature and comedy.

So what's the real problem here? And is it merely about the bosses of Israeli television?

[cprise]

2. I actually think the US spent some years in a similar

state of mind under "post 9/11 Bush". Except for small flashes in the pan like 'Air America' there was little tolerance for criticism and satire until the market disaster in 2008.

What is the problem? Fear has been turned into an industry -- like a subsidiary of the MIC. And that has happened because we lost touch with humanism and went from celebrating differences to fetish-izing them as all-important.