Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
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.
|
I'm calling you on this irate. Jon Stewart is not contributing to the destruction of political discussion by hosting a political satire show. His role in the media is well defined by his own actions as well as the content of his show, not to mention it's placement and network. He stays within his boundaries of political cynic. To say he is a hypocrite for encouraging positive change in the validity of reputable news sources is absurd. In fact, he is doing so well in his job of examining both sides of the election with a crictical eye that people are beginning to take him seriously. Jon Stewart is doing a better job than reputable news shows at keeping perspective on political process, and not merely regurgitating (very) minor issues. Our "entertainment culture" pushes for more news, more information all the time. By reporting everything, the important issues become obscured (suspected kerry war record flaws? or that BIG issue with him calling his security a son of a bitch on the ski hill). These points should not hold more importance than positions on economic policy or personal freedoms.
Now, for Stewart to ignore the influence he holds with his show would be plain stupid. He wants Kerry to win, and it shows. The fact that he does satire on both candidates merely shows his position is not set in stone. Stewart also addresses the problems he attempted to mention on Crossfire on his own show. He does it in a lighthearted way, just like the rest of the issues he brings up. All in all I see a very intelligent man hosting this satire show.
That's why he went on crossfire. I don't believe he was trying to change the minds of the hosts, but to help make people watching aware that a lot of crossfire is simply theatre (I haven't seen any arguement against this). People that believed they were being informed on two perpectives of an issue have simply been confirming their own beliefs. Just the fact there has been so much discussion on this goes to show there is a problem with the media, and disscussion will be one of the best ways to implement change.
John Stewart is not denying his role in the media. He has gained influence from his role and is using it to the best of his abilities to effect change in what he sees as a flawed system.