Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
irate...i guess i don't see your point. are you saying that satire and comedic revue don't have a legitimate role to play? if stewart was the only news media around...you would be right...he's far too flip and insubstantial. but why is his claim to being a satirist not sufficient for you? because it's popular? because some people don't fully get that it's a joke?
|
no. that's a good question and i'm glad you asked. i'm proposing that satire and comedic revue no longer have their well-defined contextual position that once made it so valuable in political discourse. satire and comedy now
IS political discussion. stewart obviously runs a comedy operation, but our entertainment culture tends to attribute to him more credibility than he deserves or even wanted in the beginning.
stewart certainly has the right to run a comedy show supported by his own comedic talents. hell, when the man is sticking to comedy... he's got an exceptional gift. he crosses the line when he admonishes others for a supposed destruction of political discussion when he himself is the posterboy for such abuses.
it's not his fault personally that the public discourse is arranged so, but to come on crossfire w/such a smug demeanor to criticize others for not effecting positive change when he is the one who could be the most help is hypocritical. it'd cost him some ratings and some book sales... but he could do more than any other tv personality to get things on track, instead he prefers to snipe at those who do the same thing as he w/out the protection of being on a particular channel.
bottomline: stewart is a big part of the problem he makes money attacking. whether that is by design or circumstance... i cannot say. the minute he begins to deny his own role in the media and
starts lecturing others is the instant he can no longer hide behind his format and must begin to take the responsibility for change that he encourages in others.