Jon Stewart's High Broderism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:33:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I did not pay attention to Jon Stewart's rally for sanity or something because it was an example of the typical nothingness that passes for deep thought these days. Apparently, Stewart doesn't like all the anger out there. Whatever. But almost worse than the rally was Stewart's response to criticisms that his rally was about nothing:

Contrary to what people may believe, I do think the rally was about something - just not necessarily what they wanted it to be about or what they think it was about. If we were unartful in that message, we were unartful. I disagree with their classification of it. But I'm sure we'll all have a chance to clarify it on each other's programs for the next 10 years."

David Broder also insists his columns are about something meaningful. Saying it is does not make it so. So what exactly was Stewart's rally about? Apparently he'll need another 10 years to explain it. I suppose that's an improvement on Broder, who has had 50 years and still can't explain it.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | How The New Federalism Can Benefit Progressivism >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Jon Stewart's High Broderism | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Now you are dogging the most (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:43:45 AM EST

influential man in 2010. You just will not be caged. What will we do with you?

If Stewart wanted to tell (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Anne on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:15:27 PM EST

Glenn Beck and the angry Tea-Pertiers that he thinks they are insane, he should have just done that, instead of equating all anger with insanity - such that liberals and progressives who are angry that their issues are not being addressed the way they want them to be - and who think they have every reason to expect Democratic members of Congress and the WH to advocate for and apply themselves to accomplishing - are lumped in with the lunatic ravings of the Beck/Limbaugh/Palin crowd.

How...bipartisan of him.

Can't we all just get along? Well, no we can't. I'm not moving to Stepford anytime soon, and I will be damned if I'm letting anyone tell me that raising my voice, or not smiling enough, means I'm too crazy to be considered credible on issues that matter to me.

In fact, I happen to think it's crazy to sacrifice one's principles on the altar of comity if it means the result is crappy, regressive policy that weakens core elements of what is holding up our democracy, and doesn't help any but the people who just don't need the help.

I thought it was a really dumb stunt, but it did remind me that some people just like being part of a herd, no matter where it's going, or who's leading it.

He's having another Nov 13 (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by waldenpond on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:21:38 PM EST

[Stewart then joked that he will hold another event on November 13 to make it right, calling the occasion "the Rally to Determine Precisely the Percentage of Blame to Be Doled Out to the Left and the Right for Our Problems Because We All Know That the Only Thing That Matters Is That the Other Guys Are Worse Than We Are and/or Fear."]

so funny... ahunhahunhahunh

cnn

I hope his false equivalency schtick gets rained out.

i thought (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by cpinva on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:00:22 PM EST

So what exactly was Stewart's rally about?

it was simply a live, extended version of both the "Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report", it wasn't about anything.

It's his false equivalency (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by TomStewart on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:07:56 PM EST

that annoys the heck out of me. His looks at the right spewing lies, than points to the left reacting to those lies, adn says 'See? They both do it!'

He's a smart guy, but sometimes there really isn't two sides to everything.

People who say this (none / 0) (#22)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:40:13 PM EST

kind of thing, or accuse Stewart of "high Broderism," are people who don't watch the show with any regularity.

If you watch the show, there's absolutely no question whatsoever who he considers the worst offenders. He's been putting their absurdities and dishonesties on display for years and years.


Horsesh*t (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:42:42 PM EST

People disagree with you.

That's all. Stop pretendingto be the holder of all wisdom on Jon Stewart.

This rally was, in my view, a complete stupidity UNLESS it was intended as a joke.

Then it was just a bad joke.


: Horsesh*t (none / 0) (#30)
by Romberry on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 05:20:52 PM EST

People disagree with you.
That's all. Stop pretending to be the holder of all wisdom on Jon Stewart.
This rally was, in my view, a complete stupidity UNLESS it was intended as a joke.
Then it was just a bad joke.
(Works just as well in reverse, yes? Yes!)

Nope, sorry (none / 0) (#32)
by TomStewart on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 06:19:01 PM EST

You're wrong. I watch it every ight, and I like Stewart a lot.

But...

He likes to call out what he sees as 'uncivility' on the left, which is usually just the left (or someone kinda left) calling the right on the nonsense they spew. Case in point: the montage he showed at the rally, where he tried to equate the left with those on FOX. I didn't buy it then, don't buy it now, and really don't buy it when he makes the same point on his show.

I like the Daily Show, but I don't buy its every view point.


I'll take Colbert over Stewart any day (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:42:32 AM EST

Colbert is playing a character, and rarely strays from it. His character has a purpose, to constantly evidence the blowhard quality of the right. That, at least, is a purpose. Stewart, as much as I like him, hasn't anything near that focus. Nor do I think Stewart could've ever given the correspondent's dinner speech that Colbert did a few years ago -- it was far too risky for him. The fact that Colbert gave that speech and retained his popularity should've taught Stewart something, but apparently it didn't.

I think both their television shows (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:49:26 AM EST

are worth my committed viewing. Strikingly though, their shows are the irony, the posers, and the grifters. They don't tell me what to think about any of it, they just point to it. I'm not sure what their rally was about either.


point to it (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:50:53 AM EST

and not tell you what to think.

isnt that exactly what they should do?


: I think it is what they do best (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:54:23 AM EST

And they should stick to it :)

Atrios (none / 0) (#27)
by Tony on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:31:53 PM EST

made the point the other day on twitter that Colbert understands politics a lot better than Jon Stewart, and I think that is correct. Stewart's media criticism is still invaluable, though, IMO.


: IMO, Colbert's character... (none / 0) (#29)
by Dadler on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:44:59 PM EST

...is a more valuable media and political criticism every second of its performed existence, but Stewart is by no means disposable.

I thought the point was (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:44:25 AM EST

we can have a big loud party on the mall and act I horses a$$es too.

still, that is reason enough for me.

: Me too (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:51:29 AM EST

I thought it was mostly about making fun of Glenn Beck :) If I was still young and uncommitted daily to anything deeper than my own silly self I would have been there and been partying :) Chit, if I can't laugh at Fox News and allow them to inspire a party themed on laughing at them....I really don't know what the heck to do with them :)

: I thought the point (none / 0) (#9)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:15:20 PM EST

was to put Colbert in cowboy boots, pajama pants, and a bomber jacket.
Stewart's a little bit better than Broder. He got more people to DC than Beck, I guess that was the point.

Lighten up, amigo! (none / 0) (#8)
by oldpro on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:08:44 PM EST

Can you say "Pat Paulsen?"

Must be a slow news day...

Direct that to Jon Stewart (2.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:15:32 PM EST

who has apparently decided to be a Very Serious Person. He's not good at it.


JS has been on his (2.00 / 1) (#15)
by brodie on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:43:37 PM EST

high horse since at least a few years ago when he went on Crossfire to denounce the show and its hosts for "harming America."

It may be somewhat jarring to see a comedian-satirist taking off the comedy hat and trying to play VSP, but it appears he was successful that time in getting the show cancelled, and perhaps that inflated his sense of Very Serious Personness.

But this isn't all that surprising. Stewart, iirc, always had a soft spot for VSPs like John McCain, the former straight-shooter who apparently bamboozled the supposedly street-smart Stewart for years about his sincerity and seriousness.


VSPhood aside... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:52:44 PM EST

some of what he said on crossfire was very true and worth being said.


Mebbe, and I've have to (none / 0) (#20)
by brodie on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:08:50 PM EST

go back and review his appearance, but I'm not sure the show was that bad compared to most of the other dreck on cable. And frankly I miss Paul Begala -- an outstanding well-informed debater -- going up against the righties for an hour.

And I'm not sure America isn't still being harmed with the bland, uncontroversial offerings of the two-hour Wolf Blitzer Show which replaced it, and the Whatshername-Spitzer Show which is an hour of blah blah blah with the hosts constantly interrupting each other or their guests to blah blah blah some more.


: I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 02:15:34 PM EST

that most of what was (and is) out there wasn't/isn't much better than crossfire, but that doesn't diminish the truth of the criticism.

: By comparison to (none / 0) (#24)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:42:57 PM EST

what we have now, no, not at all. It's SOP now. At the time of Stewart's well-aimed tirade, Crossfire was, IMO, just loathsome.

It won't last. He'll never be able to (none / 0) (#13)
by oldpro on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:21:49 PM EST

keep it up...unlike that other comedian who is now a US Senator.

Anybody heard from him lately?


Not me (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:31:56 PM EST

But I miss a lot of stuff.


: Just as well. (none / 0) (#16)
by oldpro on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:45:50 PM EST

It turns out that most 'stuff' is well worth missing.
My new philosophy. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Thinking of past comedians or (none / 0) (#21)
by brodie on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:36:16 PM EST

satirists who've tried to put on the VSP hat, I can think of a couple, and the results were mixed.

Mort Sahl back in the late 60s began using his opening monologue on his nationally syndicated tv show to go after the Warren Report, but he used both humor and cold hard facts to skewer it. Quietly about that time, on the side, he lent some of his personal time to help DA Jim Garrison investigate the assassination in New Orleans. As a result, Sahl lost his show -- I believe he feels he was blackballed in the entertainment industry for years. Basically though he was on the mark with his WR criticism and courageous in exposing, something that was verbotten in the rest of the mainstream media.
Steve Allen -- a naturally gifted comedic wit who wanted to be a little more than an entertainer, and undertook a non-comedy show for PBS in the early 70s called Meeting of the Minds which featured actors, including Allen and his wife, playing various great thinkers and leaders from history discussing Very Profound Things around a table. Profoundly unenlightening and unentertaining to boot. Then later his cranky books and tv appearances denouncing the vulgarization of popular culture, including the increasing public misuse of the English language.

Dick Cavett (none / 0) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:41:26 PM EST

How so? (none / 0) (#25)
by brodie on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:49:59 PM EST

His late night show was always a mix of conversations with entertaining and serious people.


and before that (none / 0) (#33)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:53:41 AM EST

he was a stand up comic.


: Actually he started as a gofer (none / 0) (#36)
by brodie on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:31:22 AM EST

at Time, then caught a big break writing clever witty jokes for Jack Paar, then later Johnny and Merv. Doing stand up -- clearly not his strength -- was something he did between writing gigs and until he got his first talk show host job.
Talk show hosts back then all booked serious guests fairly frequently. Different era -- the 60s and 70s -- longer attention spans and shows were often 90 min long, as Cavett's late-night show was. You need a mix of entertainment and serious, was the decision.
So I just don't see the comparison with Allen, Sahl and Stewart who all sort of stepped aside and loudly put on their VSP hat to take up serious subjects in order to affect change. Cavett had on serious guests as a regular part of his program from day one.

I only Jon Stewart I know of on TV (none / 0) (#31)
by Farmboy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 05:26:45 PM EST

is a standup comedian (and sometimes actor) who currently hosts a comedy show on Comedy Central. He has said repeatedly "that neither his show nor his channel purports to be anything other than satire and comedy." source: wikipedia entry for Jon Stewart

Here's the link to his show's website, so you can learn more about this person and his show.

Now that's Obama... (none / 0) (#34)
by masslib on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:09:40 AM EST

Obama is a John Stewart Democrat.

I WISH (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:22:40 AM EST

Obama was a John Stewart democrat


: I meant in the high Broderism sense. (none / 0) (#37)
by masslib on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:36:03 AM EST