Obama’s Rough Daily Show Turn: “Yes We Can, But. . . “

At times, one got the sense that Jon Stewart was being merciful. More than just about anyone on television, he can eviscerate public officials, even when they are sitting next to him. But with President Obama in the chair, in full-bore detached, humble, professorial mode–”I think it’s a legitimate question,” etc.–Stewart kept passing on the big openings. When Obama blundered by saying Larry Summers had done a “heckuva job,” Stewart’s response was “You don’t want to use that phrase, dude.” When Obama said, “Yes we can, but,” Stewart offered a polite chuckle.

What is perhaps most interesting about the whole appearance is what it told us about Obama. When he is up against the wall, his response is a retreat to reason. No big campaign rhetoric, no zinging attacks. He gets more humble, and more professorial, less dynamic. This is, ironically, exactly the kind of “sanity” that Stewart claims to want in the political discussion–a reasonable debate on the issues in which no one gets dinged for a clumsy soundbite. But that is not how television works, especially on Stewart’s show, which specializes in exploiting soundbites. What will be remembered from this appearance are the stumbles, not the sober framework that contained them.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • newfreedomblog

    Still blaming Bush……….still blaming Bush. 100 years from now, Obama will STILL be blaming Bush.

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Michael, allow me to parse you a bit, in a friendly way…

    You: “This is, ironically, exactly the kind of “sanity” that Stewart claims to want in the political discussion–a reasonable debate on the issues in which no one gets dinged for a clumsy soundbite.”

    Me: And, it’s what he got. Sounds like a success!

    You: “But that is not how television works, especially on Stewart’s show, which specializes in exploiting soundbites.”

    Me: I think this is presumptuous on your part. Stewart has transformed his show many times since he took over. Yes, he specializes in exploiting soundbites, but that’s not all he’s capable of and it’s not the only thing his show can do. Before the 2004 election it was shocking to people that a comedy program like the Daily Show could have as much news and analysis value as it does. That was Stewart. So before then, you might well have said “He’s trying to analyze the news and the media in a serious but funny way. Unfortunately, that’s not how television works,” and you’d have been wrong.

    Also, it’s not like Stewart has to reinvent anything here. Try telling Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers that television doesn’t work the way Stewart tried to make it work.

    You: “What will be remembered from this appearance are the stumbles, not the sober framework that contained them.”

    Me: I guess that’s somewjhat up to people like you. I don’t mean that in a pejorative way. But if you’re going to immediately take the “how TV works/soundbite culture” point of view, and others do that to, then that’s what we’ll get. But I refer you back up to the top. Stewart wanted an amusing, informative and reasonable long-form dialogue with the President of the United States and he got it and did a better job with it than a lot of journalists would have. It’s not Frost/Nixon but then, Frost/Nixon wasn’t exactly called for here.

  • nflfoghorn

    Was Juan in the audience? Was he dressed in a burqa for Halloween?
    .
    http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/

  • nflfoghorn

    And I take it you think the criticism’s undeserved. Fair enough. Sigh.

  • grape_crush

    When Obama said, “Yes we can, but,” Stewart offered a polite chuckle.

    Sounded more like a big laugh, but I guess we were watching two different shows, Michael.

    What is perhaps most interesting about the whole appearance is what it told us about Obama.

    It’s sad that you have less interest in what was being said rather than how it was being said.

    But that is not how television works, especially on Stewart’s show…

    What’s amazing to me is the ‘straight’ media’s barely-concealed jealousy of Stewart’s show. He makes a lot of you pundit and wanna-be pundits look bad and, as viewed through the objective lens of your profession, you see he’s right…which makes you upset, which in turn makes you disparage that show and its host.

    What will be remembered from this appearance are the stumbles, not the sober framework that contained them.

    “What will be remembered”…Yes, that’s probably true. Especially if what is remembered is written by those who are envious of The Daily Show’s success and have bought into the faulty ‘Obama has failed’ narrative.

  • Ike Jakson
  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    I’m also a little annoyed that Michael is so willing to blithely declare not just how television works but how Stewart’s show works. If it were so easy to know how Stewart’s show worked, the country would have many more millionaires in it. I once took a writing class from a Daily Show writer. It’s HARD. I don’t think Michael gets that, or if he does, he’s not respecting it.

  • nflfoghorn

    Take out “Stewart” and insert “Shannity”…scary thought innit?

  • grape_crush

    Spot on, Michael.

  • nflfoghorn

    Grapy, I know you didn’t intend it that way, but I’m just sayin’….

  • grape_crush

    I’m just sayin’…
    .
    Sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying I didn’t intend to say.

  • freeinpa

    Obama finally found an appropriate forum for his agenda— a comedy show.

  • mjwilstein

    in case you missed it, you can watch the rest of the interview here:
    http://bit.ly/9pFPTf

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    Your second point is interesting, and I think partly right. Stewart’s main tool is satire, which is a force that generally moves only one way: It exposes, tears down, criticizes. But Stewart, far more than Colbert, also can be earnestly positive. He praises people like Bill Clinton for being smart and reasonable (as he praises other liberal types who seem substantial). He delivers, in some pieces, actual information about what is happening in the world, like a newscast would. The trick is working out where the (destructive) irony ends and (constructive) earnestness begins, as the latter is almost always wrapped in a package of the former, and Stewart himself seems determined to always claim (coyly) that he is nothing more than an entertainer. I do stand by what I wrote about him exploiting the soundbite. The basic ingredient of a Daily Show sketch is bite-sized quotation, sometimes dramatically out of contest, to fill in a Stewart thesis.

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Thanks Michael. I don’t deny you’re right about his exploitation of the soundbite. No doubt. But he’s no one trick pony.

    About him stressing that he’s an entertainer: sure he does. He also said in a recent NY Magazine feature that what he does is a lot harder than what most television journalists and pundits do. When he says “I’m an entertainer” that’s a claim of status, it’s not like when an athlete says “I’m not a role model.”

    But thanks for the note back, very thoughtful stuff.

  • nflfoghorn

    Folks on the right use the same arguments to support whomever’s saying it (Shannity, Bleck, Flush, etc.) If you inserted one of their names in your opinion they could very well run with exactly what you said. Didn’t mean for it to fly over anyone’s heads :)

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    I don’t think I envy the Daily Show. It is not exactly competition to me. And criticism of the press is not exactly novel or threatening. It is very funny most of the time, and I describe above can have other redeeming values beyond ironic take downs. My main job is not to be funny. And Michael, I don’t for a second think it’s easy, what they do.

  • constantweader

    I watched the whole interview, & I thought both the President & Stewart did their jobs. Stewart asked some hard questions, & the President answered them more than competently & in detail. (Try to imagine Dubya doing that. Or Boehner.) I guess if you were just looking for laughs, you would be disappointed. But if you were interested in substance, which is what I thought newspeople were supposed to care about, the pans Obama is getting today seem pretty undeserved to me.

    The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    FWIW, I think the “I’m an entertainer” stuff is a cop out. He clearly peddles a political point of view, which Tim Noah accurately described as:
    .
    “Stewart-Colbertism scorns extremism of all types, but especially conservative extremism, and most especially conservative extremism driven by ignorance or religious fundamentalism. It is mildly critical of liberalism, but mainly for failing to combat conservative bombast more effectively. It endorses, implicitly, whatever liberal consensus has managed to survive these past 30 years, but isn’t terribly interested in the details.”
    .
    And by claiming the ironic pose, Stewart attempts to remove himself from the arena in which he fights. He can attack, but he can’t be attacked, because who would fight with a clown?
    .
    It is worth remembering what Colbert told 60 minutes a few years back, which I wrote about in a Salon piece. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2006/05/01/colbert

    “The real Colbert admitted that he does not let his children watch his Comedy Central show. “Kids can’t understand irony or sarcasm, and I don’t want them to perceive me as insincere,” Colbert explained. “Because one night, I’ll be putting them to bed and I’ll say … ‘I love you, honey.’ And they’ll say, ‘I get it. Very dry, Dad. That’s good stuff.’” His point was spot-on. Irony is dangerous and must be handled with care.”

  • merelymyopinion

    “It is not exactly competition to me.”

    Whistling past the graveyard, dude. Little do you know…

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Ok, this is fricking ridiculous.
    .
    First: I believe Stewart’s moved more and more away from taking a politician’s vocal errors and using them as fodder. More often, he’ll take the flubs of politicians and then mock the media for caring. Sure, Juan Williams might’ve gotten fired last week, but Stewart spent Monday’s show mocking how it seemed to be the most important issue 2 weeks to an election. He deals with actual hypocrisy rather than a gotcha sound bite. When you’re for something and 8 months later against it because it makes for a good storyline, he’ll snag you on the sound bite – but that wasn’t a gotcha, that’s a “you’re lying out of your ***”.
    .
    Second: you don’t got on Stewart being blustery. I can only think of one guy who did that successfully and that was Blago because he surprised Stewart with an argument Stewart wasn’t researched enough for (one of the few times he’s done that). You come on with bluster, and Stewart’s genuine nature will beat you.
    .
    Third: it’s generally agreed that Obama’s main benefit from this was to reach out to young voters. I think he succeeded spectacularly. He didn’t say anything that was worthy of being replayed on Fox so there will be no ripple from this. Therefore, he can play to Jon’s audience and playing to the Rally’s plot line is probably the wisest approach.
    .
    Finally: Stewart is popular because he seems genuine. Stewart isn’t opportunistic. If he’s angry, he’ll take you out and point out to you why he feels your arguments only further frustrate him. Obama’s arguments didn’t further the frustration Stewart had – hell, the “Yes we can, but” line was one Stewart asked for and it was a reasonable, response. Obama playing to his nature we’ve known for a long time actually helps further his own genuine nature and that can only help him on that show with that audience.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    You wrote, “Stewart is popular because he seems genuine.” I would say it differently, “Stewart is popular because in an era of collapsing authority, he is an ironic destroyer–the cool kid in the back of the class mocking the teacher, the students, the parents, everyone.” If no one has authority anymore–the media, the banks, the corporations, the politicains–then authority migrates to the ones who do not claim authority, they only expose it. When you can’t trust anyone, the guy who is saying you can’t trust anyone is the one you trust. None of this knocks the value of Stewart’s show. It just adds some context.

  • kevin

    100 years from now, Obama will STILL be blaming Bush.
    .
    I doubt Obama is going to live into his 140s. But historians who are working in a hundred years will certainly still be blaming Bush for the economic collapse. BECAUSE IT’S HIS F*CKING FAULT.

  • grape_crush

    Folks on the right use the same arguments to support whomever’s saying it…
    .
    Maybe. 1) The laugh at 5:55 was bigger than a ‘polite chuckle’, the criticism at 2) is independent of political persuasion; we’d all like more focus on the steak and less on how sexy the cow is….3)…yeah, I suppose so. I guess I don’t put Stewart and Spammity in the same class or league. 4) is an ‘I suppose’ as well
    .
    Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn’t thinking about using variations on the same criticisms as part of the comment.
    .
    I don’t think I envy the Daily Show. It is not exactly competition to me.
    .
    I dunno, Michael. You’ve written enough angst-y posts concerning your profession. Maybe it’s not the show that folks like you are envious of, but the freedom of expression that a working on a show like that allows a person.
    .
    And criticism of the press is not exactly novel or threatening.
    .
    Nope. What I do think is interesting is that TDS has criticized the straight media for being – at times – dumb…and in turn, the straight media is (somewhat dumbly) turning around a criticizing TDS. Think about the quote you posted above:

    “Stewart-Colbertism scorns extremism of all types, but especially conservative extremism, and most especially conservative extremism driven by ignorance or religious fundamentalism. It is mildly critical of liberalism, but mainly for failing to combat conservative bombast more effectively. It endorses, implicitly, whatever liberal consensus has managed to survive these past 30 years, but isn’t terribly interested in the details.”

    That’s a fair description. The problem is that you’re not asking whether or not TDS’ slant is justifiied and whether or not its criticisms are valid; you’re only pointing out that there’s a slant there.
    .
    To be fair, that’s the straight media’s M.O, when examining, say, Glenn Beck’s show. Y’all don’t seem terribly interested in the details.
    .
    My main job is not to be funny.
    .
    I’d be interested to hear exactly what you really consider your main job to be, Michael.
    .
    As usual, thanks to all for donating the food for thought.

  • blkndn1

    You know I really don’t like to respond to ignorance…but your comments about PRESIDENT OBAMA (please give the President the respect he deserves by addressing him correctly – whether you like his policies or not) had me a bit bothered, so I had to respond.

    Whenever a person forecloses on a home or declare bankruptcy, it takes at least three (3) years before any bank will CONSIDER loaning to an individual again (considering they have showed a good repayment on new debts). Yet, people get so angry with all these people who foreclose or declare bankruptcy saying it’s their fault for missing payments and such.

    Yet, President Obama was given trillions of dollars of debts from this country (Which everyone knows was the cause of former President Bush) and expect him to clean up the mess in less than two (2) years. But still people become upset with President Obama for not moving fast enough but continue to ignore former President Bush for his ENORMOUS Debt that he caused and then left for others to pick up.

    For eight (8) years, the former President Bush was in office screwing this country over, you continued to sit and watch him add more and more debt. Yet, you stayed quiet.

    Now YOU WANT TO VOICE SO LOUDLY that President Obama is the worse President because the economy is not better after eight (8) years of madness.

    Have you guys lost your mind??? Wait, why did I even ask that question? The answer: YES, YOU HAVE.

    i’m done.

  • doddeb

    Michael:

    Thanks much for responding to what is turning out to be a very interesting thread.
    .
    I agree that John Stewart is rather coy to call himself an entertainer. Yet consider that he has at times (had to) become a reluctant journalist. Where Stewart has won my viewership is not through the day-to-day social/political critique (although I enjoy the hell out of that), but rather those moments where he does the job that the traditional media should be doing. Rewatch the video of his conversations with Jim Cramer after the financial meltdown. Tell me that any journalist at that time was asking those kinds of pointed questions of the folks who should have seen what was coming. Had they been doing their jobs. There’s a reason why Stewart was voted “most respected journalist” on time.com a while back.
    .
    I did not have great expectations for last night’s show. I imagine it’s excruciatingly difficult to interview any President, much less the scholarly Obama. But I think Stewart showed a nice blend of critique, respect, and humor.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Michael, how is what you say different than what I said. Authority is collapsing, and so the entertainer saying what everyone who’s thinking looks like a genuine article. He’s respected as an interviewer not because he asks the questions a journalist would ask but because he asks the questions we want him to ask and then follows it up not with an objective, fully neutral eye but speaks from the heart when he rebuttals with where he feels the argument is fallacious. He’s genuine because he doesn’t try to be anyone but himself. We see him at his most immature, his most angry (Jim Cramer) and his most thoughtful. Look back at his handling of the Ground Zero Mosque where he favored two story lines – one about the stupidity of Fox news questioning where the money was coming from when the guy they were complaining about was the second biggest shareholder of Fox, but the other was an incredibly well delivered statement of why he feels the arguments of the conservatives was just plain wrong and to do so, he compared it to his own statements calling for the NRA to not host their Convention in Denver following Columbine and explaining how he was wrong at the time. It was a great segment.
    .
    He brings authority by being himself, by appearing to be genuine, by being that light of sanity in the media fueled world of the bizarre. He doesn’t hold himself to any journalistic standard other than to be reasonable. And his audience buys it because they feel he is genuinely trying to be reasonable.
    .
    All of which further underlines my point that Obama played to the audience correctly – by being reasonable, intelligent, and himself. Yes, Clinton and Bush would’ve handled it differently, but what is genuine Clinton and genuine Bush are not what is genuine Obama and they would have resonated with the crowd by being themselves in that context. Well, Clinton would have and does.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    I actually think Stewart hates the role he’s fleshed out in society. It’s a cop out, but it’s a cop out because it’s not the role he wants to be in rather than because it’s not the role he is in. He wants to be the entertainer. He wants to not be held accountable. He still thinks p**p jokes and s*x jokes are the highest orders of comedy. He had a field day with the “cash for caulk”. But he doesn’t feel like he can stay there because he feels the media has so horribly shirked its responsibility. He takes on Liberals because he feels they run away from themselves and takes on Conservatives because they are so dominant – and Fox is so dominant, and so false. He takes on MSNBC when they go hyperbolic but (A) they don’t go as hyperbolic as Fox most of the time and (B) they aren’t nearly as big as Fox.
    .
    This isn’t what he wants to do, this is what he is doing. At every corner he shirks the attempts to put responsibility on his shoulders. That Time poll, he refused to accept that the results were valid. When there were studies suggesting he was one of the best informers of actual issues, the Daily Show instantly quashed any relevance to it – saying that their viewership was getting those facts from sources other than Jon Stewart. Do you think Bill O’Rielly (who regularly places high on these studies) would ever try that? I can’t wait to see what his response will be to the “most influential” poll.

  • charlieromeobravo

    “100 years from now, Obama will STILL be blaming Bush.”
    .
    Yeah, it would be some much more convenient for you wingers if Obama would stop telling the truth and start acting like he didn’t inherit a big steaming pile from the previous administration. That way you can get busy writing that history that Bush seemed to be heavily banking on in the last days of his presidency.
    .
    Here’s the reality: unless someone invents a time machine, 100 years from now, Bush will still have driven our country into the ground by nearly every metric. Under Bush the economy suffered, foreign policy suffered, lives were squandered, our military was pushed to the brink of its capacity, government institutions were mismanaged with fatal results.
    .
    None of that will be any less true at any time in the future and as eager as people are to forget the Bush years, they still need to be reminded that government is no different than personal finance: it’s much easier to dig yourself into a hole than it is to fill it in and fix it.

  • charlieromeobravo

    “I actually think Stewart hates the role he’s fleshed out in society.”
    .
    I have to disagree. If that were true he wouldn’t be going out of his way to up the ante by doing little things like hosting a huge event on the national mall.
    .
    As far as him shirking responsibility? I’m not sure I agree with that assessment either. Stewart has been saying for a long time that he’s a comedian and a regular citizen. He claims that his outrage and desire to uncover political doublespeak and media shenanigans comes from the same frustration that a lot of us feel: we’re told one thing by politicians and the media but the reality is demonstrably something else. I think that seeing this stuff, exposing it, and laughing about it (sometimes sadly) is all the responsibility a guy in his position really has to live up to.

  • Ivy_B

    Adam Serwer makes some interesting points about this that Greg Sargent reposts.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/obama_was_right_to_go_on_the_d.html

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    @Michael Scherer: No sense if you’re still reading this thread but about Stewart’s “I’m an entertainer” line being a cop out, might I humbly suggest another reading of King Lear?

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    charlie: I actually think he does run away from it. His role is far bigger than he wants it to be or is willing to admit. He refutes every statistic that suggests he might be more important and more integral than he wants to be. He shirks his responsibility because there is a huge difference between what Jon Stewart wants to talk about and what Jon Stewart could talk about. Look at his Crossfire appearance – as much as he came away the winner of that one, he steadfastly refused to accept that he should bear any responsibility to ask hard questions or to present an unbiased view. He refuses the claims that he’s a newsman, or the primary source of news for anyone or a journalist and yet he is all 3 – not because he wants to be but because his approach is more credible than the media today. He runs away from that. It is the role he carved himself into and he doesn’t want it. He wants to be the comedian with political interests make jokes about the issues of the day. Instead, he’s become as real a news anchor as any non-self-described fake news anchors.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “Still blaming Bush…”
    .
    I watched the whole thing and did not hear the words “Bush” or even “Cheney”.
    .
    He went out of his way to not say exactly who was in office when the first four million jobs were lost, why jobs were being lost in the first three months before his team had gotten an economic plan together.
    .
    Obviously any sane person would know that these job losses were not due to foreign invasion, massive natural disasters or anything other than the unnatural disaster of not only far right economic policy, but an unusually incompetent version of far right policies done by George W Bush.
    .
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hypedworld.com/wp-content/gallery/funny-pictures/blog_worst_disaster_bush.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hypedworld.com/politics/top-10-most-funny-bushisms-video-included/&usg=__4zZuuWDB_E18Iu4M5AzN0WRJelo=&h=300&w=400&sz=29&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=GXm4KZTfitO-XM:&tbnh=145&tbnw=196&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Bthe%2Bworst%2Bdisaster%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D749%26tbs%3Disch:1%26prmd%3Div&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=137&vpy=84&dur=2758&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=137&ty=71&ei=TrvJTOC0CoW8lQfhi-GCAQ&oei=TrvJTOC0CoW8lQfhi-GCAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0
    .
    Rusty,
    .
    Obama didn’t say “Bush”.
    .
    You did.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Too fast on that submit button:
    .
    He knows it, he doesn’t want it, he hates that it is the reality and shirks the responsibility that came with it. And quite frankly, wouldn’t you?

  • apr2563

    I watched the President’s interview on the Daily Show and thought it was respectful on both sides. I guess this was disappointing to the traditional media. The meme today from them today is that Stewart humbled Obama.
    .
    I think the press has not come to terms with the fact that Stewart and Colbert find politicians funny but find their enablers, the traditional media, funnier and more destructive.
    .
    Stewart and Colbert understand and respect Fox for what it is, a propoganda arm of the Republican Party.
    There is no false equivalency between what they do and the traditional media. They simply don’t assume that Fox is a news organization.
    .
    They do expect higher standards from the rest of the press but too often are met by shallow reporting, coventional wisdom, and Village group think. Ergo, todays cw on the Stewart/Obama interview.

  • apr2563

    My goodness. This is the most I have seen MS respond to comments. He seems very defensive.
    To understand the traditional medias sensitivity to Stewart and Colbert, it is worth watching Colbert’s speech at the WH Correspondents dinner.
    He made some jabs at President Bush but most of his hits were at the assembled press. Their nervous twitters said it all. The day after the speech the general cw by the media was the Colbert just wasn’t funny. The truth hurts.
    .

    .

  • acvmd

    I keep up with the posts, but not always the comments, on this blog. Of course, with the topic being Jon Stewart, I of course had to see what everyone had to say – and it’s really very interesting.

    I’d say that the reason Stewart seems genuine, is trusted, is able to ‘get away’ with being funny and serious, liberal and ‘reasonable’, an entertainer and a news-maker is because… he is all of those things.

    As a liberal coming of age today, it seems like it’s… easier to be a conservative. I don’t know if the policies and worldview are actually more simplistic, or if conservatives are just much more adept at presenting them, but liberalism, progressivism, always just seems like a big messy mass of confusion. And for a public that doesn’t want to put in more than the minimal effort to figure out what’s going on, that’s a problem.

    Stewart has a clarity about him. A way of cutting through the junk. A way of making you listen. Yes, it’s because he’s funny. And if he went too far into the realm of ‘real’ journalism, the world would tune him out. There ARE good journalists. There ARE good liberal pundits who make sense. But they don’t cut through the clutter. They’re fine, but they’re not getting your attention.

    Stewart’s humor may not be the only thing we need, the only thing to save liberalism or the country or the media. But I don’t think what he does can be considered a gimmick or a cop-out. He only gets to be taken seriously because he’s made good points in a reasonable way. And he only gets people to hear him make those points by being gut-bustingly funny. Maybe if someone wants to match him, they need to be able to beat him at his own game. Beck and Rush claim to be ‘entertainers’ but they wear that mantle much more uncomfortably than Stewart. Everyone has a reason to say they get to say what they say and be right and try to diffuse attacks coming against them. Stewart being better at the game doesn’t make his method wrong in some way.

    Comedians have attacked politicians for years, with a point of view, and no one worried about how to ‘attack’ them. What makes Stewart so different, other than widespread success and respect?

    I’d posit that Stewart wasn’t just funnier than journalists would be trying to do his job, his ability to interview surpasses many of them as well. And that’s where jealousy sets in – it’s not enough to do one thing well. He has to do both.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Now if we can only find an appropriate forum for your snark.
    .
    http://mentalmommy.blogspot.com/
    .
    Just right for your level of sanity.

  • grape_crush

    I’d posit that Stewart wasn’t just funnier than journalists would be trying to do his job, his ability to interview surpasses many of them as well. And that’s where jealousy sets in – it’s not enough to do one thing well. He has to do both.
    .
    Agree. And, IIRC, there have been a couple of instances where journalists (and whatever we call people who work at Fox News Channel) tried to provide their own versions of TDS…
    .
    http://wonkette.com/410323/rip-mouthpiece-theater-2009-2009
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1/2_Hour_News_Hour

  • sciurini

    I learn more from the Daily Show than I ever learn from a Michael Scherer post.
    .
    Just saying

  • grape_crush

    Good link, Ivy. Thanks.

  • apr2563

    Thanks Ivy for the link.

  • apr2563

    First You Tube link is to part 1 of Colbert’s speech.
    I don’t understand why sometimes the videos will embed and other times not.

  • apr2563

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44303_Page2.html
    .
    Here is POLITICO all worried about Stewart’s Rally for Sanity hurting his brand. They, of course, use one of their ubiquitous anonymous sources.
    .
    POLITICO, the most trusted name in news after Drudge and Halprin.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer
  • maverick2k9

    aww, MS, I thought you were about to take out a “Rally to restore Shannity”. :)
    -
    Take out “Stewart” and insert “Shannity”…scary thought innit?
    -
    nfl, the distinction between Stewart and Shannity/Scherer is that Stewart is a comedian on a channel called “Comedy Central”, for crying out loud.
    -
    On the other hand, Shannity works for “news” channel that is “fair and balanced”. Heck, the branding of his show has stuff like “Great American Panel” and “Not Whitehouse approved”.
    -
    Are you suggesting that Shannity is a secret satirist?? :) LOL

  • apr2563

    Michael, I apologize for any generalizations I made about the press reaction to Colbert’s speech. Thank you for the link to your excellent reaction to the speech back in 2006.

  • maverick2k9

    To borrow the immortal words of Sylvester Stallone:
    -
    Punditry is a disease and Jon Stewart is the cure.
    - :)

  • anon76

    @sciurini- Actually, I got a lot out of this Scherer post. Thanks to Michael and his engagement with commentators for providing some interesting angles on last night’s TDS, which I found to be a strangely important event in Presidential history.
    That being said, Michael your focus on spin and perception is misplaced, as has been pointed out by others. And please, for the love of god, don’t use any more high school metaphors for describing politics. Honestly, what do we need to do to break you of that habit?

  • anon76

    Addendum- I encourage all swamp commentariat to watch the Daily Show from Tuesday- Wyatt Cynac encapsulates in a five-minute sketch all that is wrong with Beltway Journalism. He even goes to a cocktail party, where I think you can see JNS and Joe Klein if you squint just right.

    Link- starts @ 6:30 into the video.

  • liberalmeltdown

    Obama’s slogan for 2012: Change you can believe in, but not right now, and I will do what I want, not what I campaign on.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Oh yes, because he so lost your vote for some broken campaign promise. Please. I honestly feel he’s done a fair job at working on the issues he said he’d work on. Sure, we didn’t get the public option, health care is incomprehensible, Iran isn’t resolved, Iraq still has a residual force, GitMo was blocked by his own party, Isreal/Palestine is stalled, he’s blocking a lot of judicial rulings on everything from wire tapping to DADT and the economic recovery is stalled…..sorta, but he finally got health care resolved with two major issues removed (preconditions and 30 million Americans added to the health care coverage rolls), he’s got a surprisingly successfully strong sanctions regime pressuring Iran while building a fully participatory international coalition to back it, combat operations are over in Iraq, GitMo was out of his hands but he did submit his plans, he started early on the peace process so hopefully he’ll have more possibilities going forward, and he’s made incredible strides on DADT as far as getting the military into a position where it’s willing to accept the repeal of DADT (plus, let’s face it, the Supreme Court would’ve overturned it). Ok, I’ve got nothing on wire taps – that’s a fully broken campaign promised – but I feel he’s made an honest effort to follow his campaign promises on the issues he’d address and addressing them in a fully rational manner. Poorly executed too often, but a rational manner.

blog comments powered by Disqus