Please enjoy the unedited interview between Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow, from last night’s “The Rachel Maddow Show”. Some of the discussion topics: A seriously in-depth and articulate discussion on the media’s reaction and perception behind the to “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” (as well as Jon’s reasoning behind the rally), the contents of George W. Bush’s new book, the line between satire and real news, and if Jon sees himself as being in the same game as Rachel and her counterparts.
Six Degrees: Jon Stewart on “The Rachel Maddow Show”
November 12, 2010 By
Comments
If you're new to our Zoner community, please read the No Fact Zone Comment Policy before commenting. Thank you!
The timing of the interview was somewhat off. I understand Jon’s need to try and straighten out the misconceptions concerning the rally, but he REALLY should’ve waited until he was recovered from his stomach flu.
His illness looked like it was affecting his answers to a significant degree and made the issue of bringing clarity to his intentions much more difficult when he couldn’t organize his thoughts as well due to being sick.
Aside from that the interview was pretty good, the level of civility and trying to understand each others point of view was a good thing to see, especially rare in these times of polarization.
When Jon was talking about Fox’s greatest accomplishment of selling the idea of dismissing the importance of editorial control while excersizing even more editorial control and turning the idea of criticism into persecution. I was disappointed that Jon didn’t make the point about that an even greater accomplishment was that Fox turned the idea of ratings and popularity was the ONLY thing that matters in News instead of fact-checking and the principles of journalism.
I liked his idea that it’s not about left or right, but the fight should be about corruption or not corrupted. But from all the evidence that selling that idea of ratings are the only thing that matter has been bought by ALL media and THAT is the most corrupting influence of all. Since no one in the media seems to be acknowledging that the priority should be investigating the facts and reporting them as close to the truth as they can.
The thing that Rachel didn’t get was that Jon was doing his job and the function of “court jester” hasn’t changed much, but that “herald” was a different job that had more responsibilty. The tragic part was the media was getting closer to becoming more entertainment that the jester does and failing in the responsibility to do the herald job.
Difference makers:
+6
The 24hrs news organizations have become like a never ending wrestling matches where you have The Left vs The Right and we observers are just shouting and cheering for our team without actually having an actual conversation regarding on what really is important to us or to individuals. The media is dragging us into the “Tribal Mentality” of “Us Vs Them”. The News are less about the news and more about conflict. It is all about the ratings and less about the substance. The Media has become a forum in which “journalists/pundits” are only deepening divisions, de-legitimatizing the concerns of fellow Americans whom we disagree with them in the slightest, vilifying not only politicians but fellow American citizens who support said politicians. At the end we dont have a legitimate conversation, just noise. Fox News has mastered this technique and they are good at it but the disturbing thing is that other Media institutions are trying to copy their success while decrying what many perceive to be wrong for the public (which is a contradiction). By trying to emulate Fox News recipe for success we are just legitimatizing their agenda.
One example of this madness that we call the News it was the whole “Mysterious Cloud Stream Witnessed in California” was turned into “Mysterious Missile Launch: Are We at War?” by the 24hrs cycle. Now many on the Media blame the Pentagon for not responding quickly to their inquiry. The problem here is that the 24hrs news media seems to forget that not everyone is living/driving at the fast-speed lane or they seem to forget that the Pentagon has to deal with bureaucratic and security clearances before they can respond to the Media (that is their policy on anything, no matter how mundane or banal). In essence, the news cycle has become like the Fast Food Industry: quick to prepare, no nutritional value, and cheap. We’re in the McDonald’s era of news. And instead of obesity, we’re coping with an epidemic of superficiality and ignorance (In actuality the Media is not the main culprit of this but speed is the currency which the News Media survive, the quicker you get the information out the better the ratings you get. Our society has become a “fast society” in which we demand everything immediately. We want our food fast, we want responses fast, we want satisfaction fast, and we want information fast.)
The problem here is that the 24hrs news Media is becoming more like entertainment or infotainment. In the land of reality there are not enough events to fill out the 24hrs cycle, so what do they do? They create their own reality: fill up the absence of anything interesting, stretch it as long as you can, or fill it with believable garbage to finally create a new reality.
Now, I dont like Bush. I disagree with that man in a lot of things but I do not think he is Hitler or evil (or at least he doesnt necessarily sees himself as being evil). He is what I think an example of “The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions” phrase was created for. I believe that on Bush’s mind he made the world safe, he believes that Saddam was just preparing to one day get his hands on weapons to target his enemies, but “we” (and I mean we in the sense of Bush and America) stopped him before such scenario took place (this is a big IF that I take it with a grain of salt).
I really truly think that Bush tried to find loopholes on the law regarding the issue of torture so he could save American lives, but I dont believe he did it because Bush has a sadistic personality. To me he is just a dufus well intentioned patriot that made choices that many of us find questionable. What Code Pink did during Bush’s Presidency did not help to maintain a dialogue regarding the War issue. Their behavior was more props and less about conversations (the Media didnt take them that seriously, they got far less coverage compared to the Angry Town Halls. Again, Angry Town Halls makes better TV than a bunch of old ladies with red paint on their hands, no offense).
But unless we have a serious discussion regarding the decisions and choices that Bush did without becoming a Media Circus in which we paint him as some sort of monster we will never have serious discussions on what went wrong or why he did it. The conversation is already alienating as it is, but the worst part is that the Media (both left and the right) failed to point these controversial decisions in the beginning or even before the war took place, and to bring it now would seem partisan in Nature. If the Media had done its job in the beginning, the nature of this conversation will be totally different… and the ones to blame is the Media who failed to do their duty to inform the public of the dangers ahead of us, instead they either cheered or cowered from their responsibility for fear of retaliation.
As for the Tea Party, I will leave this:
These people might be individuals being played by powerful ideological organizations, but they are part of a movement of genuine anger. So let’s try to figure out why these people are so angry instead of dismissing the Tea Party as a whole.
It all comes down to this, when Jon Stewart is making fun of the right, he is heralded as a Hero. When he makes fun of the left they accuse him of “False Equivalence”. The Right dismisses Jon Stewart as some comedian as if that was an insult, while the Left keeps pressuring him to get more involved in their cause (the ideological left cause) as if that is his responsibility.
Comedy is about poking fun of others without taking sides, it is about being an equal opportunity offender.
Now, many say that since Stewart is involved in making jokes and comments that regards the nature of the media or that it involves politics in nature, that makes him somehow responsible and influential on the current political discourse. That Jon Stewart has a responsibility to become part of the “Loud Media Machine”. He wont, he doesnt want to, he is a comedian, a satirist, a commentator but he knows his place. If he becomes too involved on this field that he knows he doesnt belong, he stops being a comedian and he becomes something else.
I think, the false equivalency attack on Jon Stewart isn’t fair but understandable. People are looking at both sides. What Stewart is saying is that when you at the media as a whole you are going to miss the subtleties, that is to be expected, you need to look at the aggregate.
Like his climatology analogy, you can’t say that Global Warming isn’t happening because it snowed today, you have to look at the big picture. And the big picture he sees is 24 news networks that gin up the divide on both sides which is then amplified through a constant barrage of show after show which is restating the same news.
“There Is No Honor In What I Do But I Do It As Honorably As I Can.” — Jon Stewart.
at the end I believe this is Jon’s Message: to be careful with what you internalize, the news we consume has gotten way out of whack with a constant emphasis on division/conflict/hysteria, and that without some sort of recalibration we won’t be able to function on an interpersonal level if we adopt the media’s adversarial mindset.
Difference makers:
+8
“Comedy is about poking fun of others without taking sides, it is about being an equal opportunity offender.”
I must respectfully disagree with this. Comedy CAN and has taken sides–and I think it should, when necessary. Satire takes sides. It always has, and that’s the point. One example: Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” a scathing indictment of England’s treatment of the Irish. Or “The Great Dictator” (mentioned by Jon), in which Chaplin takes aim at Hitler. Yes, Jon is right that it ultimately had no political effect, but that doesn’t mean that Chaplin wasn’t right to do it and from the future he looks quite prescient. (And I’m pretty sure Hitler WAS Hitler!)
Similarly, the Court Jester was the one person who could tell the truth to the the King–he takes a position, but presents it comically so as to keep his head. A delicate balance.
Now, what comedy MUST do? I have one answer to that: be funny! But if it’s political comedy it’s going to be judged on different criteria than mere schoolboy humor.
Now, depending on the political situation, you may find yourself living in a time where being an equal opportunity offender is exactly the right thing to do. But that isn’t always always the case and both sides aren’t always equally deserving of mockery at any given moment. And by the way, I do have a problem with making a “liberal” and a “Tea Partier” opposite-side equivalents because I think the opposite of a liberal is a conservative, and the Tea Party goes way beyond that. I know many conservatives who can’t deal with them.
As for the interview itself, I immensely enjoyed it because Rachel is so low-key, never given to raising her voice or interrupting her guests. They can speak their peace and she responds respectfully no matter how much she disagrees–although she probably has more in common with Jon than not. And I have to say, she asked many of the questions I would have liked to ask him myself.
I guess my ultimate disagreement with Jon is about his influence. He does have incredible influence, no matter the reason–even if it’s simply because the news divisions have abdicated their responsibility. He doesn’t have to WANT that influence, or feel that it’s influence he should rightly have in the scheme of things, but I think he should more fully acknowledge the extent to which it’s real and powerful.
But that’s just my humble opinion!
Difference makers:
+7
Superbly put Karenatasha! Thank you for expressing in writing a lot of what I’ve been thinking. :)
Shout Out (Hey!):
+2
I would say both you and EvilDevil make a series of excellent points, and I agree with you that comedy does take sides – Jon himself said as much during the interview, we all demonize those we disagree with and give more leeway to those we agree with (though Jon does manage to strike a good balance nonetheless).
I’m not sure what to take on the argument that Jon has influence. I guess my question is “What kind of influence?” For me, he has the power to take something I’ve always thought, then say it aloud and in an entertaining way, so that at home I start jumping up and down on the couch screaming “YES! YES! I’VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS! YOU GET IT! YOU KNOW MY PAIN!!!” That’s why I love this man, and that’s why I will follow him to things like the DC rally. Like many a great entertainer, he sells himself (even if it’s unintentional) on the fact that he’s relateable – I can relate to where he’s coming from and what he says. That said, I don’t know how my feeling, or rather the plurality of that feeling, translates into political or media influence. Media figures look at Jon either in envy – “Gosh, I wish I could say what you guys are saying.” – or as some kind of weirdo who has an insane number of viewers; that is, they don’t really understand why he’s popular, but they play along because they want to get in on that action. Politicians are much the same – they see in us fans potential votes and so they play along to get in on it.
So what I guess I’m saying is that I feel like the only real influence Jon and Stephen has is through the power of us – the great multitude of fans who appreciate what Jon and Stephen do, especially in light of the media abdicating their responsibility. Not that that isn’t genuine influence, but I think if Jon and Stephen were to fully accept that influence and act on it, it would compromise their standing. Their power derives from the fact that they have very little power. They have a soapbox to stand on and air their grievances, and really nothing else. But because that soapbox is surrounded by a sea of people – as we saw on 10/30/10 – I think many look at that and mistake it for true power.
Shout Out (Hey!):
+2
I absolutely agree that Jon’s influence comes from his fans. And I don’t even think he has to act on it or do anything differently than he has been doing. I just think he shouldn’t underestimate that influence. And admittedly, he doesn’t always. I understand Jon is being careful, and that he is a highly intelligent man capable of seeing the fine nuances in an argument.
Where I think both Jon and Stephen can affect things is in making their audiences see the political and social scene in fresh ways. They can make their audience THINK and widen their perception of the world. And yes, as you said, sometimes it is enough just to hear them verbalize what you’ve been thinking, but in a wittier, more clever way.
I guess what it comes down for me is, I’ve always felt comedy is sometthing special and powerful. I’m a great subscriber to the old line, “Life is easy. Comedy is hard.” I think when done well–as both Jon and Stephen do–it’s one of the most honorable and honest vocations anyone can have.
Shout Out (Hey!):
+1
Wow! I praise your writing and 24 hrs. later DB makes you a completist! :) I’m going to take credit for this. And I’m going to call it “The Arkadin Shove.” *Trademarked* ;)
Congrats Karenatasha! Your going to be great!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Thanks so much, Mr. Arkadin! Your support is much appreciated.
And I like the Arkadin bump. It has very good pedigree! ;-)
I think this is going to be a fun ride.. (Not bumpy. No seat belts!)
Shout Out (Hey!):
+1
great discussions and valid points being made all around! but I think the more important question is…
what was up with those awful boots jon was wearing? I know that he was sick, but jeez!
that is all.
Shout Out (Hey!):
+3
I really loved the boots!!
Though, I’m pretty sure there the same pair of boots he’s been wearing since the early 90′s.
Shout Out (Hey!):
+3
they certainly look as if he may have been wearing that same pair since the 90′s!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
LOL! I didn’t even notice his boots, (I did notice Rachel’s sneakers, which I know she always wears.)
Now I’ll have to go back to take a look.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Oh, by the way, there was something else I meant to bring up. Did everyone get Jon’s reference to having “Lonesome Rhodes on his shoulder?”
That is from an incredibly brilliant 1957 film called “A Face in the Crowd.” It stars Andy Griffith as Lonesome Rhodes, a down-home musician who ends up getting drunk on power and fame after becoming the star of a hit TV variety show. I have always thought Stephen would be brilliant in a remake.
Shout Out (Hey!):
+1