« Russia Treats South Ossetia as Non-Georgian Territory; NATO Membership for Georgia; the Ukraine Worries (Not Without Cause); W Takes a Vacation
Punishing Russia, the Cold War and the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan »



New York Times: Is Jon Stewart The Most Trusted Man in America?

August 18th, 2008
By DAMOZEL

Print Print

The answer may well be “yes.” (NYT)

When Americans were asked in a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to name the journalist they most admired, Mr. Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN.

And a study this year from the center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that “ ‘The Daily Show’ is clearly impacting American dialogue” and “getting people to think critically about the public square.” (NYT)

Yes. And there’s this:

Most important, at a time when Fox, MSNBC and CNN routinely mix news and entertainment, larding their 24-hour schedules with bloviation fests and marathon coverage of sexual predators and dead celebrities, it’s been “The Daily Show” that has tenaciously tracked big, “super depressing” issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power.(NYT)

And this:

MR. STEWART describes his job as “throwing spitballs” from the back of the room and points out that “The Daily Show” mandate is to entertain, not inform. Still, he and his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day — “the stuff we find most interesting,” as he said in an interview at the show’s Midtown Manhattan offices, the stuff that gives them the most “agita,” the sometimes somber stories he refers to as his “morning cup of sadness.” And they’ve done so in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious.

“Hopefully the process is to spot things that would be grist for the funny mill,” Mr. Stewart, 45, said. “In some respects, the heavier subjects are the ones that are most loaded with opportunity because they have the most — you know, the difference between potential and kinetic energy? — they have the most potential energy, so to delve into that gives you the largest combustion, the most interest. I don’t mean for the audience. I mean for us. Everyone here is working too hard to do stuff we don’t care about.”.(NYT)

And this:

What the staff is always looking for, Mr. Stewart said, are “those types of stories that can, almost like the guy in ‘The Green Mile’ ” — the Stephen King story and film in which a character has the apparent ability to heal others by drawing out their ailments and pain — “suck in all the toxins and allow you to do something with it that is palatable.”

To make the more alarming subject matter digestible, the writers search for ways to frame the story, using an arsenal of techniques ranging from wordplay (“Mess O’Potamia,” “BAD vertising”) to exercises in pure logic (deconstructing the administration’s talking points on the surge) to demented fantasy sequences (imagining Vice President Dick Cheney sending an army of orcs to attack Iran when he assumed the presidency briefly last year during President Bush’s colonoscopy). (NYT)

Much more here.

A colleague of mine commented:

One of the remarkable things about Stewart’s material is how well it holds up. Go back and watch old segments from his primary coverage, for instance. It’s very clear that he saw the big picture, and recognized what stories were meaningful and which ones deserved nothing but pointing and laughing.

 

In a funny way, working as a satirist actually frees Stewart from the BS media cycle, and lets him a little more freedom to be a real journalist.

And it’s not really that Stewart really aspired to be what he’s become for some people, their most relied-upon news source. Who can forget his famous rebuke to the media? Remember when he went on Crossfire and told them that they were “partisan hacks” who were hurting America—after which they proceeded to prove that they don’t know the difference between a comedy show and a real news show? Heck, maybe they’re right and there no longer is a difference.

If you aren’t familiar with Stewart’s work, or haven’t been following him recently, I’ve got links to my personal favorites here (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

CROSS POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS



This entry was posted on Monday, August 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am and is filed under You Tube, Satire, Great Comedians, Comedy Central, Social Commentary, Media Criticism, Television, Polls, Society, Comedy & Humor. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    That video is priceless, and Jon does a great job of pointing out the kind of hypocrisy that is tearing up this country. It shouldn't be any wonder Stewart has more credibility than so many so-called "news" programs.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm not a big fan of Anderson Cooper's affected angst.

    Jon should've come in tied at least for third.

    Stephen Colbert's devil's-advocate show with his affected narcissism is a SCREAM though. I've got some busted ribs right now and I'm going to have to be very careful not to watch either show for about 6 weeks.. I've got a sister-in-law who thinks he's being serious...lol...oooh...ouch!...ouch! ..

    lol...
    • ^
    • v
    Easy on the euphoria, left coasters. That fourth position was captured with a whopping 2% of those polled. The real story should have been how lacking in credibility anybody is, serious or semi-serious. Shaun Mullen could probably claim 2% of you as well.
    • ^
    • v
    One thing I've noticed recently (and has improved Stewart's standing in my book incredibly) is that he really does seem to be a media critic. We probably first saw this in the Crossfire segment that you posted, but it's continued since then.

    I first really noticed it when he and his staff stitched together a series of news show segments showing that the media just might have an infatuation with Obama. The cake for me came at the last clip in that segment, where he played a clip of Wolf Blitzer interrupting an interviewee to proclaim that Obama had just gotten off a plane somewhere (I forget where it was).

    Liberal media or conservative media: it doesn't matter for Stewart. If there is hypocrisy and silliness to point out in the media, he will point it out.

    Sil: My dad thought he was being serious, too, until I pointed out Colbert is a Democrat. Though, the "Formidable Opponent" segment Colbert did last Thursday got me wondering exactly how liberal Colbert is. I say this because he seemed to endorse a "smorgasbord" approach to energy.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Russia Treats South Ossetia as Non-Georgian Territory; NATO Membership for Georgia; the Ukraine Worries (Not Without Cause); W Takes a Vacation
Punishing Russia, the Cold War and the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.