It was once your favorite TV show, wasn't it?
Yes.
IN THE COMMENTS: I explain my reason for drawing the line now:
This week's show, the first post-Katrina coverage, has been just blatantly telegraphing from the very first moment that the whole point of the show is to slam Bush. I'm upset about the hurricane and find it very off-putting to see political ideologues salivating over a chance to get Bush over this. I'm not even sure that's what the show goes on to do. I just can't bear to watch it. Instinctively, I don't want to watch.
ABOUT THE COMMENTS: Lorie Byrd reads this post and one of the comments and responds:
When one commenter said that The Daily Show and Jon Stewart only poke fun at the “people in power” and that is why they are spending so much time attacking Bush over the Katrina response, another responded with this:"As such, they have done their job. Of course they’re poking fun at the administration. But you can bet it’s more towards the “people in power.” Simply put, that means that if Dems had been in power, i can assure you that the coverage would have been the same.”
The Dems were in power. Which party are the mayor and governor from? There’s so much comedy material based on their performances, are you telling me they weren’t mocked mercilessly?
पोस्ट्स
८८ टिप्पण्या:
Why did you stop?
I have never watched the show because previously, I never found anything he said even remotely funny. But, like Sloan, I'm curious why you quit watching.
Is this because of their Katrina coverage?
I've never thought the bits with Stewart were that great, and most of the interviews I don't bother watching, but some of the canned segments, particularly with Stephen Colbert and Steve Carrell, have been very funny.
This week's show, the first post-Katrina coverage, has been just blatantly telegraphing from the very first moment that the whole point of the show is to slam Bush. I'm upset about the hurricane and find it very off-putting to see political ideologues salivating over a chance to get Bush over this. I'm not even sure that's what the show goes on to do. I just can't bear to watch it. Instinctively, I don't want to watch.
"I like to watch television," said Chauncy Gardener.
But not watching can also be good.
I was tempted to hijack one of the other threads to comment on Stewart's ridiculous behavior on Tuesday (Let's see people claim, 'he's only a comedian, now).
I think though that there are still humorous moments during the show overall, and maybe at some point he will get over himself and get over this nearly fatal case of Bush-derangement, if not I believe that this show is probably the least filtered representation of Manhattan Media groupthink and therefore is useful to monitor.
So do I disagree with almost every political stance that this show has taken, yes, does this frequent politicking get in the way of the funny, yes, will I continue to watch the show hoping that the funny comes back, yes, for now.
(and part of the reason why the Daily Show staff think it's ok to be this way is because they are surrounded by people who give them positive reinforcement the farther left they go, from the audience to the people they interact with at the coffee houses and parties they surely attend it's all one large left-liberal echo chamber (or circle jerk if you prefer))
LeroyW--your critique is deconstructed by your own use of rightwing groupthink and echo chamber phrases like "bush-derangement." As soon as I see a left-wing critic described as a crazy Bush hater, the speaker/writer is discredited.
Elizabeth: I agree with you, but do you know of any left-wing critics who are not Bush haters? I don't.
lmeade: it's probably the same percentage of kneejerk rightwing commentators who don't pull out cliche after cliche about the left. But that's just a guess.
Wow. That's some mindf*ck. Does it matter to you at all what the actual left-wing critic is saying or is it simply impossible to be a "crazy Bush hater" in your world because one can never hate Bush enough?
Nice red herring, Lindsay. But you've turned my point on its head. Yes, the substance of anyone's argument matters to me, left or right wing. But that has nothing to do with my post, as you know but choose not to address. My post called out the hypocrisy of calling out The Today Show for its "echo chamber" nature while using terms that are nothing but rightwing echos, devoid of substance. Silly dittoisms like "Bush hater" and "Bush Derangment Syndrome" are windbag labels that fail to respond to the content of an argument, and are the stock phrases of shallow rightwing discourse. Pointing that out doesn't deny the existence of shallow left-wing discourse, and you know it.
But Elizabeth, things often become cliches because they are true. Your argument leaves you in the intellectually interesting, but indefensible, position of having to ignore people whose grip on reality has become so strong that it changes the language.
There are people who have "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - folks so committed to hating the president that if a solar flare toasts the planet, they'll find a way that it's Bush's fault, even as the flames envelop them.
It is certainly true that the echo chambers can pick up false memes and themes. But ignoring something on the ground that it is resonating in an echo chamber is to deliberately deafen oneself to truth, as well.
Robert, I judge this on the same basis of the "nazi" argument. There really are parallels to Nazis that make sense at a given time, in a given discussion, and yet, we've come to agree generally that making that comparison pushes past the point of rational discourse. I've seen the Bush Derangement comment so many times, so often, in such inappropriate and inaccurate instances that it's become useless. It is, simply, a stupid ad hominem device that's not worth an ounce of respect. Anyone who wants to counter what they feel is an illogical or factually incorrect statement criticizing this president can find a way to do so without trotting out those cliches. If they can't, they're not worth paying attention to.
If you don't think the phenomenon of 'Bush-Derangement' exists then bully for you.
That phrase is an echo of Rush Limbaugh devoid of meaning, interesting.
From my perspective I see a 50 years long record of mouthpieces on the coasts belittling conservatives as either crazed warmongerers hellbent on world destruction (Goldwater, Reagan, GWBush) or simpleton westerners who are being lead by smarter more nefarious figures within their administrations (just Reagan and GWBush, though if Goldwater had defeated LBJ surely the same meme would have emerged).
Media power is concentrated in NY and more precisely Manhattan, that's not some John Bircher fantasy, that's fact, and that's fine, but that leads to distortions.
On the west coast you can count those that are out as Republicans within the entertainment industry without resorting to your toes (both hands are sufficient). Hyperbole, maybe, but not by much, and if you are being honest with yourself you know this is true.
In 6th grade in sunny Santa Monica, CA we had a vote by raising hands on who we supported for the '80 election, I was the sole Reaganite (there were a few Anderson followers, but the rest were looking forward to 4 more years of Carter). The teacher strongly encouraged me to change my mind and when the President was shot that same school year she showed little sympathy for the President and many of the students were of the opinion that he got what he deserved.
So again, if you think "Bush-Derangement" is a Rush Limbaugh derived exagerration, that's up to you, but growing up and living where I live I hear what people on the left think when they know everyone around thinks just like them and just like the outsized hatred aimed at Pres. Reagan, the outright hatred for Pres. Bush is a byproduct of a whole bunch of folks who never experience the tonic of a heartfelt discussion with someone who doesn't think almost exactly like they do.
And if you are a conservative, you will be exposed to the other side everyday, just turn on the TV (doesn't matter if it's not a news or opinion show, even in the most mindless of entertainment shows there likely will be a moment reinforcing leftliberal bias and attacking conservatism, South Park the only notable exception) which is why if you are conservative in a liberal conclave you develop thick skin (which it seems to me most of those left of center lack)
But I forgot, I am a mindless demagogue who spews talking points straight from AM Talk Radio so why have any of you who disagree with me bothered reading this far down(it's bad for your blood pressure)?
Manhattan-think and deranged Bush haters. These are great and accurate (like laser guided markings tags) ways to describe The Daily Show and its organizers / Stewart.
As to Cincinnatus, your blog is named Moderately Angry. Not very accurate is it? Suggest you get the old paint can out and change to something like "Just Plain Angry Cause I Can't Get Any".
Jason: Why are you informing me "it's a comedy show" and that sort of thing? Did you read my original post? I said it used to be my favorite show so obviously I get the idea of the show and am the sort of person that sort of thing appeals to. I've been TiVo-ing and watching virtually every episode for years.
By the way, when I told my 22-year-old son (who is not a Bush fan) that I don't like "The Daily Show" anymore, he said matter-of-factly that it wasn't good anymore, as if he wondered why I still bothered with it.
Completely agree with Ann’s comment: This week's show, the first post-Katrina coverage, has been just blatantly telegraphing from the very first moment that the whole point of the show is to slam Bush. I'm upset about the hurricane and find it very off-putting to see political ideologues salivating over a chance to get Bush over this. I'm not even sure that's what the show goes on to do. I just can't bear to watch it. Instinctively, I don't want to watch.
Don’t think I lasted five minutes before turning it off and haven’t been back. I’m sure I will at some point, but right now I am so disgusted by what I’ve read coming out of New Orleans and the politicizing by so many people.... The failures on the local, state, and federal levels are staggering. The inactions of Nagin and Blanco are responsible for many of the deaths. FEMA is a joke, always has been - anyone in the Southeast having watched them not learn from any of their past mistakes should know this - and Brown is inexcusable and this display of cronyism is a major fault of Bush. However, Bush isn’t Superman and what point The Daily Show was trying to make by saying Bush was still at the ranch and not ripping open roofs with his bare hands eludes me.
But it is the local government’s responsibility to be first responders and they failed. Failure to order a mandatory evacuation in a timely manner, failure to follow evacuation plans, failure to have the levees inspected as soon as the worst of the storm had passed, failure to provide any kind of security, whining that the federal government wasn’t doing enough and then failing to give them the authority to take over the situation, failure of the Louisiana state and federal legislature to responsibly use any funds given them.
This is not a Democrat problem. This is not a Republican problem. This is a problem of institutional incompetence, of indecisiveness, of greed, of vanity power grabs.
And so everyone has some information to easier tag me with whatever echo-chamber label you desire, I have never joined or contributed to a political party. I have never voted for Bush. Don’t read too much in too that, didn’t vote for Kerry either. Disgusted with both and since my state was so clearly going Bush, I passed on that match up and just voted for the local elections. In fact, I’ve only voted for one winning Presidential candidate - a reluctant pull for Clinton in 1992.
I was also put off by Stewart's opening diatribe. Dennis Miller did that sort of thing much better.
I did like the next segment though, from Giants Stadium. That was good.
The capture theory can now be applied to the Daily Show.
I started losing interest with the 2004 election and have tuned out since it's turned into sport Bush bashing.
I think what is interesting from Ann's comments is that it does appear that Stewart has lost his edge. Somewhat from Ann's original comment, but probably more importantly, from her son's.
Her son has really been of the demographic group that is Stewart's real base, and who made him influential. During the last election cycle, we were constantly hearing that those of Ann's son's generation were getting a lot of their politics from the Daily show.
But the problem is that the more a group is influenced by trends, like the Daily Show, the more fickle they are, and the easier it is to lose their allegance.
I should add that he is still hot though with the teenage crowd - but not surprising as they often follow the lead of those of Ann's Son's age.
Finally, I don't know if we will ever know why he lost his edge. It may have been Katrina. It may have been the last election. Or, it may just have gotten old.
BTW, I am conservative, but still enjoy him - but this is probably because I don't have a TV and so don't watch him very often.
this sounds like a problem and just a little unfair. Guess it's only ok to defend yourself and property if you can pay someone to do it for you:
Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
That order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.
Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.
Arguing is ridiculous. Ann doesn't like the Daily Show and that is her right. I have my issues with Ann and most of the commenters on this site which is my right. Noone is going to convince anyone of anything. Even the facts are changeable in this post-modern world we live in. The only odd thing is that it's the Republicans who embrace this post-Modernism so fervently.
"even the facts are changeable..."
You will never hear a non-liberal say that. That's a liberal talking point because they can not believe the majority of voters don't think like liberals do. So they insist it's a matter of their superior message not getting out or the MSM carrying Bush's water. Didn't happen last week did it?
For me, it became too painful to watch around June 2004. I have caught some segments since then, but usually within seconds the Official DU Talking Points Memo is whipped out, and I have to turn.
I scan lots of blogs. His jokes are simply posts cribbed from various Dem sites, with a little ha-ha added to justify his pay. But it might as well be DU or the daily Kos. Why bother?
It's too bad. If he were just slightly more subtle and even-handed, he'd be far more effective. As it stands, he just reinforces the beliefs of the true believers. Not sure if anyone else is joining that church, though.
Nothing personal against you (or your son), Professor Althouse, but neither of you is a very good judge of comedy. Nor of distinguishing real insight from mere "Bush bashing."
LeroyW--it's not that I don't believe BDS exists, it's that I don't care. Clinton Derangement existed, Reagan Derangment, too. What I care about is finding a way to talk with people with whom I disagree, and making sense to one another. When the ad hominem stuff comes out, the discussion is generally not rewarding.
Your tale of being a little Republican in California made me sad. It must be so difficult to be conservative in America today. If only Republicans could make some ground in the Senate, or the House, or the White House, or the Courts. But even if they could manage that, some nasty old liberals probably would be mean to their president. They're deranged like that.
Jack Roy: Care to elaborate in a way that makes some sense of the fact that I've been watching the show every night for years? And what the hell do you know about my son?
Yours is one of the lamest comments I have ever seen on this blog. What motivates people to bother to write a comment to say something like that?
Haven't watched since pre-2004 election. Stewart's position appears to be "we're a fake news show, and therefore not under any compulsion to be evenhanded." He used to be evenhanded, and when he was the show was funny. But that's long since over.
Stephen Colbert gets what Stewart doesn't, that ideology is by definition not funny unless you're making fun of all ideologies. There's nothing funny about campaigning against Bush disguised as a fake news show, but it sure is pathetically sad.
Until liberals figure out you have to be for something, not just against Bush, they're going to keep on losing.
Larry, I'm waiting on your psychological assessment of the variety of rightwing commentators on the blog. Bet I'll be waiting a long time. I have no problem with people who state their positions firmly, who have opinions that differ with mine, as long as they're willing to listen in return. I dislike cliche namecalling, but I appreciate more creative efforts, especially when they're part of a substantive statement. And I'm through defending myself to you. You seem stuck assailing those of us on the left just for having the temerity to speak. Keep it up. We don't care.
Elizabeth - I agree with what I think underlies your argument. That calling someone a victim of BDS immediately renders the rest of the comment a diatribe. That is of course is quite true many times.
As I suspect you do, I too decry the growing inability to have civilized, productive debate and discussion between Americans of the left and right.
You said you don't deny that BDS exists and neither do I. I think for discussion purposes the term adequately sums up a wide-spread set of behaviors exhibited by some on the political left, and a few on the extreme political right.
Here is the hard part: Who's fault is it that civilized discussions are so rare, and that the public discourse is turning into a cesspool of lies, unsubstantiated claims, and downright hate?
Assuming the source of the problem lies with Americans from both the left and right (ignoring effects of non-American influences for this discussion) then within which 'side' does the problem reside? Or since responsibility is distributed to some degree between the two sides, which side has the greatest share of responsibility?
What do you think?
Back in high school in the 1970s, I actually thought that Sat. Night Live was evenhanded. I have since gone back to watch them again, and ...wow. Not so.
But I was a lefty then, and I guess I thought the minor criticisms made against Carter were the equal of the rather harsher treatment given to Ford and Reagan. The political skits have aged poorly, yet the social stuff is often still rather funny.
Is that always the way? Soon will John Stewart just be speaking to the left? Seems to me just the political equivalent of one hand clapping.
I stopped watching the Daily Show when Craig Kilborn left.
Back then it was a show that made FUN of the media machine, it wasn't simply a less restrained part of it.
Perhaps a discussion of what good comedy is is needed.
It seems that the high standard of "it's funny because it's true" has been replaced, in the Daily Show, with "It's funny because I'm arching my eyebrows/making a face."
Daily Show was once my favorite TV show. I rarely watch it anymore. What made it good years ago was that it was so anti-BS. It sought to slay dogma with the harsh light of humorous alternative ways looking at the situation. That's mostly gone now and the show has become largely dogma itself.
It wasn't Stewart that got to me, it was the AUDIENCE.
Sometimes, I admit, Stewart makes a joke that pokes the left site of the aisle. To this, the audience lets out, at most, a small, awkward titter.
But whenever he makes even the crappiest, unfunny crack at the right, the audience EXPLODES in laughter, shouts and even cheers.
Oy, it's annoying to say the least. "Echo chamber" indeed.
part of the reason why the Daily Show staff think it's ok to be this way is because they are surrounded by people who give them positive reinforcement the farther left they go
Another part might be the fact that the show draws 1.5 million viewers a night, a 33 percent increase from a year ago.
I stopped watching a couple of years ago. Staying up late, or taping, became an effort, not a pleasure, after Colbert gave way to various unfunny, mean sidekicks, and Stewart's jokes about all poobahs became "I mean, isn't Bush dumb?" No one is funny all the time, and he's taken the easy way out.
Elizabeth, you almost had me with the statement that you want to find a way to talk to people you disagree with. Then you went on a snark about the poor, sad little Republican. Jeez! He was a kid.
I've been a liberal all my life, worked on Clinton's campaign and, yes, voted for Bush. I imagine Leroy to be an honorable person as well. Once you allow yourself to imagine that, you will find that way to talk to us.
I know it's impossible, but can you imagine if Stewart and Maher had a child? Smuggest kid alive.
Bob Costas or Keith Olbermann should be the godfather. (Bryant Gumbel or Dennis Miller if the first two are unavailable.)
Why are the worst narcissists on tv all men?
"I respect your opinion, but I think you're overreacting to this situation."
What? She doesn't like the show. Period. Overreacting? You mean, she OUGHT to like the show? If she was thinking properly, for example? She either finds it entertaining - or she doesn't. It's that simple.
I also don't like heavyhanded 'entertainment' that clearly panders to a particular point of view. You lose that detachment, you lose insight and wit. Stewart once had more integrity than that. So I agree with Ann. But even if I did not, I'd be out of my mind to try and tell someone what they need to find entertaining. That level of mind-policing is beyond distasteful.
Even declaring that you don't like a TV show anymore makes one fodder for hate peddlers. See it our way or else. Ann never said no one else should watch the show - yet she's being told that she MUST. (And must like it, too.)
I too found the 'coverage' of Katrina extremely partisan and worse, not funny. I haven't watched it all week as a result of the horrible show on Monday.
Tuesday morning driving to work I actually wondered if the Daily Show was undermining confidence in the government among the demographic who get most of their news from the Daily Show. I know it sounds absurd but many people use TDS as a source of news.
Stewart, et al can be funny. They used to be funny. Stewart has done a service to his audience by introducing serious guests and not just actors plugging movies. But over the past few years partisanship has warped their sense of humor for the worse.
Adults realize that most TV peeps stand somewhere on the continuum. I realize that many will stand on a side I don't agree with. For me, that difference is not enough to make me change the channel.
When the partisan stance, however, supplants the expertise (comedy, reporting, analysis, etc.), I'm gone.
It would be like going to a strip club and having Jim Bakker get up and give a lecture. Not what I'm there for.
SMARMY; Adjective
"Marked by false earnestness"
John Stewart's photo belongs next to SMARMY in the dictionary.
I remembered a Jon Stewart that represented some of the professional beach volley ball players in the late 80's. When I saw his program I realized it was the same guy. More than a decade later still neither competent or funny.
"I'm not even sure that's what the show goes on to do."
It does, for the rest of that edition and the succeeding ten and counting.
"As soon as I see a left-wing critic described as a crazy Bush hater, the speaker/writer is discredited."
What heights of imbecility. I was appalled, but not surprised, to see that you're an English professor. This kind of poor interpretation of rhetorical theory can rarely be found outside the collegiate academia of our field.
Yes, Leroy is using labelling. It's a low argumentive device. Does that make it any less true that a large plurality of leftists (and perhaps are a majority of "voiced" leftists) are indeed deranged, and the focus of their derangement is George W. Bush?
If I were to describe violent criminals to you as pyschopaths, or militant Islamists as fanatics, or religious southerners as proselityzing bible-thumpers, would you turn up your nose and sneer? Somehow, I doubt it, especially on the last score.
"Robert, I judge this on the same basis of the "nazi" argument."
Yeah, that's a real valid comparison. Implying that someone who sounds crazy and hates Bush is a crazy Bush hater is just like implying that a politician is totalitarian and genocidal.
And I'm sure you troll left wing blogs disparaging each Nazi reference as damaging credibility.
Equivalence for the win!
F15C, I think the problems with dialogue rest with individuals, not one's position along the political spectrum. It's a matrix, not a line, if you will. I am suspicious of propositions that people with X kinds of personalities are liberal and those with Y kinds of personalities are conservative. People may change political alignments over time, and people may also change how they communicate, over time, depending on audience, and for other factors.
I would suspect it's likely one might be ablel to map spikes in correlation of communication styles to political leanings on various blogs, because those populations self-select, gravitate together, and find the conditions amenable for hyberbole and rash expression. The same people who read this blog might behave quite differently if, say, we all worked at a company and shared office space or lunchrooms, or if we all lived in the same town but had little else in common.
AJ Lynch said...
"'even the facts are changeable...' - You will never hear a non-liberal say that."
Okay I say it and I voted for Bush in 2004. There are post-modernist out there that still live in the world. I would expect we are mainly in science or the IT fields.
PatCa,
Leroy's honor is not in question, but his perception of being persecuted as a conservative is way out of whack. The GOP controls all levels of government. What the heck? When conservatives go on and on about the bias of the media, the east and right coasts, I start to wonder if they'll only be happy when there are no liberals, when on one disagrees with them, when everyone just loves Bush. I live in the South, and I'm a lesbian. Wanna bet that I sometimes face problems with that? My state passed a constitutional amendment limiting far more than my right to marry. I faced violence and discrimination for being queer when I was in junior high and high school. But we're adults here, now, and it's not like I went back in time and slapped some poor child's face. You'd have every right to chastise me for saying what I said to a child but that's just not the case.
Elizabeth, re; "I start to wonder if they'll only be happy when there are no liberals, when on one disagrees with them, when everyone just loves Bush."
You don't suppose there might be some middle ground between no liberals at all and deranged liberals unable to have a rational discussion? I hope there is, otherwise, I vote for "no liberals at all"; it's quieter there.
Hitnrun, you actually want to argue that leftists are deranged? That's incredible. And all Muslims are terroriats, I suppose. The examples you go on to offer are false analogies: sure, militant Islamists are fanatics. But you'd be wrong in characterizing all Southern "biblethumpers" as you do. But are you seriously saying that opposing Bush is evidence of mental illness? If so, thanks, you're making my point for me.
I understand Ann's comment about Stewart, given her description of herself as a moderate. But have any of you who are disappointed in Stewart's increasingly one-sided partisanship turned off Rush for the same crime? They both fudge the line between partisan commentary and comedy/satire. What's your position on Rush, as opposed to John S.?
Elizabeth, Rush Limbaugh is a political talk show host first and foremost who occasionally does some funny bits. His conservative Republican self-identification is his primary calling card, and the "comedy" (scare quotes because I find him intolerable and thoroughly unfunny) is sheerly peripheral.
He is NOT a comedian and ostensible-newsman who has become increasingly self-important about his role in "bringing news to a young generation" whilst simultaneously seeking to cloak his politics under the guise of either objectivity or "it's a joke, and we attack everyone."
The comparison you made is so weak - and manifestly so, to the point that I'm surprised that my post is even necessary to point out its absurdity - that it gives cause to question the seriousness in which it was offered.
Jeff B.: I think Rush Limbaugh is as successful as he is because he's funny. He and I were born on the same date, and that makes me feel that I have a good sense of where he gets his radio voice. I don't know if this is true, but he reminds me of the two guys I used to listen to every day on the radio in the 1960s: Jean Shepard and Cousin Brucie.
Holmes:
"What's the Daily Show with John Stewart"?
If you were writing for it, maybe Ann would still be watching.
Manos: I stand corrected but was referring to you know things that already happened not science and labs and that kind of complex stuff.
Have a great weekend everyone! Even you Cincinnatus.
Rush is not a comedy show--it's an editorial show with strong elements of comedy and satire. People listen to it specifically for his political punditry.
If Stewart were a leftist version of Rush, I'm sure people would like his show fine. But his punditry skill isn't even in the same ballpark as that of Rush, and his show is supposed to be a comedy show. Stewart is headed into pundit terrority (an area in which he is not very good) and away from comedy (an area in which he is very very good).
Jeff, I've personally heard Limbaugh distance himself from criticism by pointing to his show being entertainment, not news. I don't watch Stewart enough to know, but the times I have watched, I haven't felt that I was being deceived by "news." A stronger comparison would probably be to Al Franken, who also used to be a comedian, and I can't listen to him anymore than I can stand Rush.
Funny, I just let my subscription to the New York Review of Books lapse after about 20 years for the same reason-- because I can't stand the shrillness of the incessant anti-Bush slams (I think the killer was when Freeman Dyson worked one into a review of books about the cosmos; maybe it's in your contract now when they commission a piece, you can only write about Wordsworth or Pessoa if you bash Bush along the way).
I could have taken the slams if they were thoughtful about the issues-- I haven't dropped The Atlantic, for instance. But I found it really depressing that so many of the people I expected more from simply peddled the Upper West Side cocktail party line. To name one, Timothy Garton Ash wrote so movingly about democracy coming to Czechoslovakia-- but when it comes to Afghanistan or Iraq, he has nothing to say except that Bush's war is against international law. From a magazine that was once committed to asking the hard questions about politics and international affairs, there was an almost willful refusal to ask what another successful approach to the middle east would be, what the result would be if Saddam was left in power, how precisely you deal with terrorists if you a Guantanamo is beyond the pale, All that matters is blasting Bush; responsibility for the world is not their problem.
Manos: People in "science" and IT believe facts are changeable?
Well, in that you can change things by actually changing them, sure.
But in the PoMo sense of changing them by just deciding they're not facts?
Well... my own experience suggests that neither chemistry (nor indeed any other science) nor IP routing work that way, so these must be strange sets of science and IT.
Heck, your more reputable philosophers tend to deny such a claim, in that accepting it makes reality itself incoherent.
John Stewart drives me crazy whenever he decides he needs to share his wisdom with us stupid proles. I haven't been able to watch the Daily Show since he took over. Also, I never thought he was funny.
But have any of you who are disappointed in Stewart's increasingly one-sided partisanship turned off Rush for the same crime?
Yep, I sure did. I even used to be a Rush 24/7 subscriber, now I rarely listen to him. Blind partisanship is unattractive no matter which side of the fence you are on. In Limbaugh's case it wasn't so much that he was pro-Bush but rather completely anti-liberal.
I can't say that I turned off Jon Stewart for the same reason though, I've always thought he was kind of an ass.
I stopped watching when Stewart didn't 'get' Christopher Hitchens.
Michael: I have a real feeling for that. NYRB was by far my longest running subscription when I let it lapse last year. There were some years when it was my ONLY subscription. I kept if from about 1981 to 2004. Sad!
As for listening to Rush Limbaugh: I only ever listen to him in my car, and even then just to see what his line is. It's different to watch something on TV. You're devoting real time to that. If "The Daily Show" was on the radio, I might put it on to see what they were saying.
As for the clapping, hooting audience: I've blogged about that before. It was a big part of what made the show insufferable. Laughing is a much more high quality human reaction. Clapping for jokes -- it should be a crime.
Laura: Here's my take on the Hitchens interview.
I hate it when he makes political points through humor- and then retreats to "we're just a comedy show" when people critique the political points.
I mean you're not making fart jokes. Political parody isn't some new genre either, and traditionally the fact that you're a parodist (if that's a word) doesn't make you immune from serious critiques.
Richard--that made me laugh, but I tend to agree!
Ann, that's a good distinction. I could never watch Howard Stern on TV, and unless I'm remembering wrong, Rush never did too well on TV, either. To follow that through, suggesting Stewart might be listenable more than watchable offers a good illustration of your original post.
I am like Ann with Rush - and that is about how old I thought you were (I am about 6 months older). I listen to him on the radio when driving from point X to point Y. I switch to NPR on his station breaks, but back since they seem about as liberal as he is conservative (giving away my leanings).
Some of his stuff is really funny, esp. the songs, such as "I am a philanderer" and "They drive a Yugo".
I do remember him on TV, and he wasn't nearly as good. But I don't think that I could listen to him for the entire 3 hours. 15 minutes here and there is enough.
I do disagree though about Stewart. He might be able to compete on the left side of the dial against Rush. Might be able to do better than O'Franken did. But, as has been pointed out here, he needs more than just Bush is Stupid to make it work.
Howard Stern. Isn't he the guy who has all of those women on his TV show who strip and they all critique their bodies? About the stupidest TV show I have seen for quite awhile.
I haven't enjoyed it since Kilborn..
When it turned into a daily Bush-bash in 2002 or 2003. The only thing worth watching anymore is the hysterial This Week in God.
I've never watched it. On those rare occasions that I tuned in for a few minutes I found it smarmy and elitist, especially in segments by Stephen Colbert and his fellow "correspondents" I sometimes feel that Stewart yearns, in his heart for a sane and civil America. But the net effect of his show is to degrade and ultimately make the American state irrelevant to his viewers.
Will a generation exposed to this constant negativism care about our society or will they not be more likely to abandon it to the charlatans and fools.
Anybody have a link to the segment Ann is talking about, after Katrina hit?
I thought he was pretty funny, but I quit watching because of the bleeping and dirty jokes.
I instance a Stewart analog: I loved Garrison Keillor, thinking the "Book of Guys" spanned the diapason of humor: the faintest lashes of wit to raucous guffaws. Now I can't bear him. It's as if he started channeling his Inner Lutheran Preacher sometime around 2000, and has fallen into terminal earnestness. The talent is gone.
It just occurred to me how the old STL Weekend Update bit featured Dan Ackleroyd advancing this argument: "Jane, you ignorant slut!" That used to be satire. Now it's a standard argument on certain blogs, and the irony I guess has been lost om ,amy.
Eric,
You raise some points for me to think about. I'm no fan of some leftie bomb throwing. I'm just as dismayed by what I guess is the corollary to Bush Derangement Syndrome, Bush Dissociation Syndrome--the reflexive defense of Bush in any and all circumstances. It's all a round of Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are, but what am I?"
It will be a tragedy for our nation if liberalism and conservatism clash in a zero-sum game.
Elizabeth wrote:
"Silly dittoisms like "Bush hater" and "Bush Derangment Syndrome" are windbag labels that fail to respond to the content of an argument, and are the stock phrases of shallow rightwing discourse."
Implicit in this comment is the idea that all arguments should be addressed on the terms set forth by the party making the argument. That is of course a logical trap that allows the first party to dictate entirely the terrain to be fought over as well as providing the not-so-clever out of "but you didn't address this absurd point that I made" so I must've won. It's bad argumentation and poor form.
Another assumption made in the above quote is that the original argument was made in good faith. A claim of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is made precisely to make the point that the first argument was made in bad faith. Therefore BDS serves a function not just to negate what someone on the Left has said, but to impugn the first party's standing to make good faith arguments in the future.
Therefore, let me summarize the argument:
First Party: Bush = Bad.
Second Party: BDS = The first party has argued in bad faith and therefore to confront the comments of the first party in a logically consistent manner would be to waste my time as the first party has no inclination toward reasoned debate.
First Party: You didn't answer my accusations so I must have won!
Second Party: crickets chirping
Does that help you, Elizabeth?
I'd argue that for the time between the election and Katrina I watched VERY little of the daily show. However, of all the coverage of Katrina, TDS has been dead-on--even given the week absence.
I'm sorry that people think it's taking pot-shots at Bush, but they take pot shots at EVERYONE. They are very good at calling people of all sorts out on their ineptitude--and this administration is full of it. If someone would like to point out one thing they showed that wasn't accurate, I'd love to hear it.
P.S. At least when I was watching regularly, two recurring favorite targets of TDS were Lieberman and Kerry.
Mmmbeer: Did they lash into Nagin and Blanco? I'm tuning out all Katrina politics that don't spread the criticism somewhat evenly.
Birkel,
Thanks for the help. But you're assuming that BDS, in all its many uses, actually means how you define it. Sure, sometimes the scenario you describe is true. But it's also a default reply when someone just doesn't want to address an argument they don't like, not for it's logic, but for its target.
A=Argument in which criticism in lodged at Bush.
B=BDS!=You criticized Bush, and thus are not worth taking seriously. I win! You're crazy!
It's nice to be helpful to one another.
The Daily Show ("Global Edition") is in fact a weekly show here in Thailand and I only watch when I stumble across it. Yet even that may now prove too much.
Twice I found the "International Moment of Zen" greatly repulsive. The first time was around January, when Iraq and Palestine were holding elections and Bush was swearing in. Jon Stewart remarked that "as the Middle East becomes more democratic, the United States becomes more authoritarian [or totalitarian]". (This is from memory, but it should be very close to the actual quote.)
The second time is just this week. Stewart appeared (I wasn't paying much attention) to say something to this effect: Thank you for contributions from all over the world to the Katrina relief efforts. Next time there's Tsunami, we Americans won't be so grudging with our help and donations.
Prof. Althouse:
Yours is one of the lamest comments I have ever seen on this blog. What motivates people to bother to write a comment to say something like that?
Whoa! Try the decaf! I meant no offense; I merely meant to say that, if you were correct in your intimation that your son didn't think the Daily Show had been funny in a long time, he was incorrect. And if you don't like the show these weeks, I think you're letting your protectiveness of your ideological viewpoint cloud your aesthetic judgment. (Which is a distressing and childish tendency, whether from conservatives who think Bruce Springsteen should just shut up, or from my fellow Jews who won't listen to Wagner or read Ezra Pound because of the anti-Semitic connections. Grownups have an obligation to be... well, more grownup.) There's no accounting for taste, but there are such things as standards, and Jon Stewart's show is outstanding.
Look, what I have a problem with isn't people disagreeing with certain spokespersons of the political left or finding them disagreeable or especially arguing agaisnt them---the marketplace of ideas depends on that. What does, emphatically, test my patience is this left-handed reaction once it comes out that someone we like believes things we thought it impossible for good people to believe.
It's not just the right, although your reaction to Stewart reminded me an awful lot of the reaction on the launch of Air America Radio that Al Franken simply wasn't ever funny---this is both from syndicated columnists and personal friends whom I remember laughing at the Stuart Smalley bits. When the guy who runs Daily Kos said something that certain liberals and feminists took as unpleasant, there was an analogous chorus that Kos hadn't been nearly as good as he used to be, and all those who were outraged insisted---insisted!---that they hadn't read him in months if not years. It's not a failing particular to one swath of the ideological spectrum, but it is a failing. And again, it is childish.
The fellow told jokes that you didn't like. So did Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl back in the day. The thing that the bluenoses who detested Lenny and Mort didn't get was that the more supposedly respectable audiences protested that Mort and Lenny weren't really doing good comedy, the more the joke was on them. So, in short, quit being such a square. Everyone can see right through it.
PS: "one of the lamest comments"? Ouch. Truly devastating.
I'm in agreement with Uncle Mikey who posted above. The Daily Show and Stewart used to be much more evenhanded. Stewart purported to be someone who would poke fun at all politicians, regardless of their affiliation. And that's when I really liked the show. However, before the election, the show shifted and it became....partisan. Not too blatant. But just enough so. And it's easy to say "It's just comedy". But not when such a large portion of people actually state that they get their news from this show! The Daily Show writers AND Stewart know this and to shuck off the responsibility as "just comedy" seems a little seedy to me. Now when I try to watch it, it's almost like you can see it in Stewart's face...like he knows what he's doing. Trying to persuade people.
So I argued that when people suddenly protest, upon discovering that a comedian or other entertainer doesn't share their political viewpoints, that what everyone else can see clearly is funny, or insightful, or rockin' or whatever else have you, it's a transparent defensive mechanism, and a childish one.
In rebuttal, Larry says:
..."Bush is a poopy-head" (which is actually funnier than many of his [Jon Stewart's] "jokes"....
I rest my case.
Jack Roy still strikes me as entirely out of touch with my point of view. He shows no understanding of me! He's not familiar with even the most obvious things on my blog, yet he has the nerve to go on and on saying what he imagines he knows about me! It's simply preposterous! You know I even bought the Campaign 2004 DVD the Daily Show put out just a couple month's ago! And then the crap about "bluenoses" and being "square"? Try relating to the actual person you're talking to, Jack, not the stereotype of a right-winger you idiotically think you're talking to.
Larry, would you care to offer any evidence in support of that? I have only done a google search of "nielsen ratings 'daily show' 2005" and haven't come across what looks like an authoritative source, but it wasn't too hard to get a pretty good survey of The Daily Show's popularity, and it doesn't seem to me to be terribly concordant with what you tell me: the ratings reached a record for the show during the 2004 campaign, and their viewers are far more likely than average to have gone to college or earn more than $100,000 a year, which leads me to suspect it's not just "lefties" watching it. But if you have more recent data, I'm always curious to learn something new and would be grateful for the chance.
Professor Althouse:
I realize narcissism is the national pastime of Bloggsylvania, but in the real world it still doesn't count as reproof to accuse your interlocutor of not knowing all the details of your own life.
Come to think of it, I'm a little mystified as to what it is, exactly, you think I imagine I do know about you. This whole thing got started with my (rather offhand) comment that:
Nothing personal against you (or your son), Professor Althouse, but neither of you is a very good judge of comedy.
Now, let's be perfectly clear what this means. I was responding to your comments to your own post that you find the Daily Show distasteful, ideological rather than humorous, and I believe you mentioned that your son doesn't think it's funny either. (I'm quoting from my own faulty memory, so I may have this wrong.)
That's exactly enough to justify what I wrote in my original comment. You don't have very good taste in at least some things, this being one of them. I'm sorry, but The Daily Show is hilarious, and Stewart is one of the most insightful cultural commenters in the country. Again with my faulty memory, but if I recall, Tucker Carlson even called Stewart "either the funniest smart man, or the smartest funny man on television, depending on whom you ask." No great Stewart fan, he.
But I'm tired of litigating this issue, and so shall ask if it was not you who just cited the humorousness of Dennis Miller with approval? To accuse someone of having a misplaced sense of humor doesn't exactly require a full psych write-up. Heck, I believe Larry may have suggested as much about me. At least I have enough selbstsicherheit not to complain about it.
PS: "He shows no understanding of me!" Indeed, no, and I don't plan to take the time acquiring an "understanding" of you. When I was in law school one of my profs misguidedly allowed us to write papers on whatever topic we were most interested in. The policy was quickly lamented after it became clear, in his words, that our "favorite topic [was ]ourselves." I was happier when I believed this was a failing peculiar to law students.
PPS: There's a little show called Seinfeld that was pretty funny. If you had ever seen the episode where Elaine edits her boyfriend's manuscript and Jerry thinks his accountant is on drugs because he sniffles around mohair, you might think twice before ending three sentences in one paragraph with exclamation points.
I'm coming to this thread super-late, but here's a response to Louisa141 nonetheless:
I'm curious - is there even a right-leaning comedy show out there? Would the equivalent be Dennis Miller (I don't watch him anymore at all).
Have you ever seen a programme on WB or UPN (I forget which...they're often interchangeable in my mind) called Blue Collar TV?
Well, that's not precisely a right-leaning comedy show, but like all Southern-centric shows, certain traits one might call right-leaning in modern American society are often portrayed -- ranging from patriotism, blue-collar values, to ease with religiosity, etc.
It's not that Democrats are not patriotic, and plenty of them are religious, as well as seeing themselves as by inference, blue-collar, but the fact is, those are values which the media and entertainment industry don't project as positive anymore.
And anyway, no one but Jeff Foxworthy could have a segment called "Queer Eye for the Hick Guy" and get away with it.
Cheers,
Victoria
Ann, what took you so long?
I stopped watching last year, albeit I never watched more than a small segment's worth of Stewart's Daily Show incarnation.
To say you're a comic who comments on politics is one thing, but to be like Margaret Cho (who has gone off the deep-end politically, and perhaps mentally..., a comedienne I previously loved for her voice-impersonations), who just uses her stand-up as an excuse to bash Bush, bash Bush often, bash Bush all the time, well that's just lame.
For the record, I think intro- monologues Leno and Letterman do are a lot more pithy, often more politically-acute, than other shows which masquerade as news analysis (like Keith Olbermann's simpering show on Mess-NBC).
For me, comedy doesn't play favourites or have a whipping boy -- and that goes for whatever little letter is after any US President's name.
Cheers,
Victoria
Ampersand: Maybe they read my blog. I should check back. I did look at their coverage of the Roberts hearings last night and saw that they poked fun at Schumer.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा