But what about the benefits of Stewart's role? Are there any to be found? I just came across this article in NPR that makes such a case:
Friday: Employment Report
11 hours ago
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Praise for Jon Stewart
So we've heard the argument against Jon Stewart previously in our discourse. He is clearly polemical and at times partisan but he flies the banner of comedian, so granting himself impunity. I think it was Matthew who raised this point, and it was well taken. By this view Stewart seems disingenuous and even cowardly; anyone who crusades around the political arena exposing scandals and righting wrongs should settle into the broad tapestry of media pundits, not snipe at people from the arena's edges where there is no accountability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteI believe that the benefit of Stewart's comedy/journalism is basically what the article outlines. He has a small influence on television journalists to "keep them honest". His limitation - that his audience and format don't allow for him to perform his own real journalism - is also a strength in that he doesn't have to play the games that real journalists have to. That's why he gets to do a "takedown" of Cramer and nobody gets fired or has to resign.
But, I believe that the media establishment (at least the part of the establishment that takes notice of his show) has pretty much incorporated Stewart et.al. into their marketing and media strategies. We can see this most clearly in the way guests come to the show. For a while, if he had someone important (ex. president, senator, whatever) on the show it was a surprise. His guests were often second tier folks who you'd also see on PBS as a commentator or some such. The big guests went to the late night shows with Leno and Letterman or the morning shows or maybe the Sunday morning news programs - not to TDS. Sometime around the '04 election he proved his worth as a true media critic and a force to be reckoned with. (Think about his appearance on Crossfire in '06 when he pretty much ended the show's 8 year run in one night.) His guests became the same people on Leno and Letterman and the Sunday news programs. Suddenly every author on a book circuit was on with John Stewart. Every new movie's lead actor was on TDS. Every news personality (ex Fox News) has been on at least once. John Stewart is now part of the machine.
No, that has not undermined his ability to poke fun at the news and specifically at 24hr cable news. But I think anyone holding on to the idea the Stewart is an outsider taking on the system is missing out on the past 4-5 years of TDS.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think John Stewart's role in the politicotainment-sphere has been supplanted by Glen Beck. Part of the reason that John Stewart has been so successful is the Bush Administration. Its easy to be anti-establishment and make good comedy when the target of your efforts is widely believed by your own audience to be inept, absurdly stupid and possibly criminal. Add to that a media environment that the administration knew how to control and we get the perfect time and place for a show like TDS. He gave a voice to people who didn't have a mainstream place to voice their opinion.
Now, his audience sees a less absurd, inept and corrupt administration in office. Now the media has learned its lesson and will be sure to perform real journalism (at least from the pro-Olberman/Maddow audience perspective). Now John Stewart is part of the echo-chamber. His comedy is becoming increasingly focused on how the media is obsessed with celebrities, on how Fox News is stupid, and less on politics. The "I have a new Book/movie/TV show" interviews now take up half the show instead of the last 5 minutes.
Enter Glen Beck. He fills the exact same gap on the conservative side that Stewart did on the liberal side. Beck is now anti-establishment (or maybe pro-reestablishment). His show (I admit to watching it extensively) is, by its own admission, the fusion of information and entertainment. He is not a journalist and even Fox News admits that. The most important thing to Beck is the feeling he creates on his show. The emotional truth of his message far outweighs the need for facts/data/reason. (Stewart knew this and launched Colbert as a satire of conservative media personalities - they didn't anticipate the gaping maw of wharrgarbl that is Glen Beck, though.)
Let's look at the similarities between Beck and Stewart inc.
-Both speak to basically one specific populist audience.
-Both value ethos over logos. Both have strong media presence (meaning things they do get noticed).
-Both influence the news cycle and politics (think ACORN bust).
-Both use comedy/stature as "not a journalist" to ignore journalistic responsibilities.
-Both cherry pick their "experts" to support whatever position they're taking at the time.
-Both change position on issues based on public opinion.
-Both are entertainers first, but have audiences who see them as real, credible sources of information.
-Both have media empires (ok, Beck maybe more so but think about the Books that Stewart and Colbert have published. Think about how they were in TV/movies before they got big. Beck now publishes books like crazy and performs in his own children's theatrical experience).
-Both function as media critics. They point out how slanted, corrupt and uninformative the news really is.
-Both take on the political machine for the benefit of their audience.
Beck is playing the same game Stewart plays, but he's doing it for the other side. And, perhaps because of his audience or because of his channel, Beck is going further than Stewart ever could.
John Stewart mainstreamed info-tainment. Now we have to live with the results. The real benefit of John Stewart? I'd say the cheapening of discourse. Distilling "real journalism" to simply criticizing journalism. John Stewart helped make the media landscape into a meaningless, post-modern, entropic cluster fark. We don't talk about the issues any more. We talk about talking about the issues. The talk becomes more important than the issue. The emotion and feeling become more important than the issue. What is actually in this Health care bill? Dunno. Don't care. It feels right/wrong. We just had a candidate for Vice President pretty much because she "felt right" to a particular subset of Americans. She might be President in three years.
Simulacrum and simulation. No reality here. Thanks The Daily Show.
Saw this and had to post it for relevancy:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/jon-stewart-mocks-the-gle_n_424532.html