Jon Stewart’s announcement that he is
leaving the The Daily Show after 15 years has received lots of
attention. I’ve watched his shows once in a while and find him
somewhat amusing. Because of the occasional outages of my cable
provider (who shall remain unnamed) my wife and I decided to watch
some of his shows for amusement. While I do find him entertaining I
also find him aggravating, not so much because of his blatant
political agenda but his method. Yet when challenged by critics (yes,
he has some) as he was on Chris Wallace’s show Stewart conveniently
hides behind the excuse of “Hey, I’m a comedian not a
newscaster!” However, just as his show is a fake newscast of sorts
so is his defense. For a detailed analysis of one his shows see this
article by Kyle Smith, NY Post. (I’ve extracted some noncontiguous
comments.)
Though Stewart has
often claimed he does a “fake news show,” “The Daily Show”
isn’t that. It’s a real news show punctuated with puns, jokes,
asides and the occasional moment of staged sanctimony.
Stewart is a
journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one.
Most other
journalists aren’t allowed to swear or to slam powerful figures
(lest they be denied chances to interview them in future). Their
editors make them tone down their opinions and cloak them behind
weasel words like “critics say.” Journalists have to dress up in
neutrality drag every day, and it’s a bore.
Yet Stewart uses
his funnyman status as a license to dispense with even the most
minimal journalistic standards. Get both sides of the story?
Hey, I’m just a
comedian, man. Try to be responsible about what the real issues are?
Dude, that’s too heavy, we just want to set up the next d- -k
joke.
Lest I be accused of picking just an
example from the right here is one from the left by Jamelle Bouie, a
staff writer for Slate.
For liberals in
particular, the idea that government is only hypocrisy and
dysfunction is self-defeating and nihilistic.
The natural
response to all of this is a version of Stewart’s protest—He’s
just a comedian—and a refrain from The Dark Knight: Why so serious?
The answer is easy: He’s influential. And for a generation of young
liberals, his chief influence has been to make outrage, cynicism, and
condescension the language of the left. As a comedian and talk show
host, Jon Stewart has been pretty funny. But as a pundit and player
in our politics, he’s been a problem.
In a similar vein Bill Maher uses
similar ploys although Maher doesn’t try to hide its agenda or hide
behind the veil of “I’m only a comedian.” Like Stewart, Maher
picks an easy target on the right, finds an inconsistency in what a
Republican or conservative politician says in one venue then finds a
case where they contradict themselves later. That’s fine. What
bothers me more is that find both of them to be intellectually
sloppy, lazy or dishonest.
In one show during Maher’s ending
monologue/diatribe he labors to prove that the prosperity the middle
class enjoyed during the 1950s was due to – are you ready? –
socialism! He trots out the GI Bill in which veterans received
various benefits like paid college tuition as a primary example. He
should check the definition of socialism which is “a
political and economic theory of social organization that advocates
that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be
owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
Naturally the adoring audience rewarded Maher with hoots and raucous
applause. They miss the fact that his “argument” (such that it
is) relies on the misuse of terminology.
Was this an accident? I don’t think
so. Maher is a bright guy so I find it hard to believe he doesn’t
know what socialism means and that his example would be more
accurately be considered some kind of welfarism. I think his mission,
like Stewart’s, is to influence those in his main demographic
group: 18 – 34 year olds.
Getting back to Stewart in one of his
shows he cites a Republican who bemoans the regulations businesses
have to bear. Stewart digs out a case where this politician is asked
if Starbucks employees should be required by law to wash their hands
after going to the bathroom. He says (if I recall correctly) that it
should be optional and better handled by the free market. Well, this
is fresh fodder for Stewart to show how stupid free market advocates
are. To be fair, in another segment he takes on the measles outbreak
and quotes a liberal Californian who justifies why she didn’t get
her kids vaccinated. Of course, he then trots out NJ governor Chris
Christie who says the decision should be the parents’. I won’t
get into the argument whether mandatory vaccinations is a valid
function of government. What Stewart ignores is the overall effect of
regulations on businesses and the economy. By implication and his use
of the hand-washing example Stewart leads his viewers to believe that
ALL regulations are justified and anyone who thinks otherwise is
stupid. He doesn’t come right out and say it. He doesn’t have to.
I read a paper recently that shows that
the number of Federal regulations have increased by seven-fold since
1950 and tries to quantify the drag these regulations have had on the
economy. I also read an interview recently of someone who works for
one of the large financial investment companies on the beneficial
effects the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act had on their business. Why? Because smaller institutions or
potential start ups don’t have the resources to comply with the new
rules and regulations imposed by the act. It has helped this large
investment company fend off competition. I wonder what Stewart and
Maher think of that? Something I’m sure they supported actually
helping a big business thrive. That is the ultimate joke on them and
us, isn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment