I'm curious where Jon Stewart ever said he should be taken seriously? On his comedy show I mean. In his testimonies to congress and whatnot, he doesn't do the comedy thing.

I'd also say the same thing about Al Franken - he was pretty deliberate about "de-comedying" or whatever it was he called it when he went into his first term in the Senate. I will admit that that would not have been as much work for him as it would be for Stewart.

They're probably referring to the Crossfire interview (which is widely credited with getting the latter show cancelled). He basically complained about the lack of depth on Crossfire, and when questioned about his own show's lack of depth he basically just said "It's a comedy show".

It's sort of a nuanced issue, since a lot of people took The Daily Show seriously in that era anyway. The difference is, of course, that Crossfire and its ilk were/are unserious in subtle ways, and seemed meant to be taken seriously. I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to decide which space Joe Rogan's show lives in (I actually couldn't tell you, never having seen it).

An ancillary point Stewart made was "the Daily Show is on Comedy Central" (per memory, this was before peak Daily Show popularity, so it was well-known but not famous) as opposed to "Crossfire is on CNN."

Presumably people watch CNN for different reasons and with different expectations than they watch Comedy Central.

Tucker Carlson's rebuttal was that Jon Stewart could book political guests that wouldn't come on Crossfire, so he had a journalistic duty to ask hard questions.

Which... felt kind of weak to me. For profit media is for profit, and both Crossfire and Daily Show were beholden to the bottom line, and had to calibrate their behavior against that. Edward Roscoe Murrow, they were not.

PS: My favorite Stewart line from that interview remains (paraphrasing) "Crossfire isn't theater? Tucker, you're 35 year old man wearing a bowtie. This is theater."

Pretty sure the GP is referring to the famous Crossfire takedown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

There's a play by play of it on Crossfire's Wikipedia page also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(American_TV_program...

Why is he invited to give testimonies to congress, do you think? This is not something I have the opportunity to do. It's, presumably, on the basis of his comedy show? He doesn't want his comedy show to be taken seriously, but he wants himself to be taken seriously on the basis of that comedy show? What's the difference?

Congress routinely invites individuals to "testify" for propaganda purposes. It's all for show. Remember when they invited Tipper Gore to testify based on zero actual qualifications?

https://www.npr.org/2005/01/11/4279560/tipper-gore-and-famil...

They are comedians. They are entertainers. Why do Americans hold their entertainers in such high regard?

These people may put some thought into what they say. And some of them may be smart people. So sometimes they have good points. And sometimes they don't. Sometimes they are right. And sometimes they are wrong. But you should just laugh. And if they give you a new perspective on something, find out more reliable source. Why are you taking jokes seriously?

It's been going on at least since electing Ronald Reagan president in 1980.

And it's not just the USA, see Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, whose resumé previous to being elected president consisted of being a politically relevant comedian.

The fact that he turned out an extremely solid wartime politician came as a massive surprise to me. At the very least, whoever is in charge of his image is doing a phenomenal job.

I mean, actors excel at "image", that's kind of their job?

I saw someone make an argument that the rise of celebrity politicians is about television. See also JFK, kind of one of the first "celebrity" politicians in the age of TV -- not that he was an actor first, but still.

Yep. America used-to have wheelchair-bound president 100 years ago, for Christ's sake. Now, it would be completely impossible. Presidents have to look good, or at least healthy. Even the senile Joe Biden is actually looking pretty crispy.

FDR and his administration went to great lengths to hide the wheelchair. They even made a panel for the resolute desk to hide FDRs lower body when seated. Imaged mattered then as much then as it does now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_desk

Wheelchair users have been elected to Congress in recent times. It's not impossible that one could make it to the Presidency. We just don't have enough data points to draw firm conclusions about how that impacts electability.

FDR (not quite 100 years ago) was wheelchair-bound but very cagey about it. And FDR was hardly fifteen years in the grave before Nixon lost a TV debate to Kennedy by looking pasty.

The senile Joe Biden?

He's 79 years old. Senile means, as per the thefreedictionary.com: "of, relating to, or characteristic of old age".

The fact that he's a war time president at all is a massive minus. He ran on a platform of letting the Russian minority get more autonomy - the previous government's slogan was literally military, language, faith - and then launched a major operation against the break away regions more or less as soon as he got in power.

Go to youtube and look up the Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer interview (this happened after the 2008 financial crisis).

Then look up Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

I can't find a version of that interview that isn't edited, you really should watch the entire thing as it went out over the air.

But here's one that shows the important parts (imo). Note the timestamp is 57 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkqzRs95Sc&t=57s

Jon Stewart was publicly saying what everyone wanted to say. The only person he could get ahold of was Jim Cramer, but you can FEEL the anger. That anger wasn't just Jon, it was your average Americans.

---

Jon Stewart was consistently getting named in polls as the most TRUSTWORTHY news source, and a lot of it was for this. As a comedian he was pointing out the ridiculousness of the politics, and he wasn't doing it because it was a republican in office.

Because Jon Stewart was saying what most people WANTED to say.

I can't find the skit, but during the Iraq war the US lost _PALLETS_ of money. Think about that. PALLETS OF MONEY. Jon Stewart did a skit where he made fun of it because how ridiculous is that? You send literal pallets of money and don't put enough security on it to prevent it from disappearing?

---

There's this idea of court jester's as being the only people who could safely say certain things. I'm no historian so I can't speak to that historical accuracy, but that's how I view Jon Stewart.

People are aware that he's a comedian, and they're aware that he's highlighting very specific things. But given the news media then (and today), there's a reason he was considered by many people to be the most trustworthy news source.

When Jon made those statements about only being an entertainer, he was defending himself from attacks by the media, not by your every day American people. That statement in particular, put in context, was him showing how ridiculous it was for these organizations to be attacking him.

If people consider you the most trustworthy news source, you have a responsibility to live up to that trust, which saying "I'm only an entertainer" is abdicating, he was saying "I'm only an entertainer, why are you trying to hold me to the standards of news media?" Well, because millions consider you a trustworthy news source, that's why.

> There's this idea of court jester's as being the only people who could safely say certain things. I'm no historian so I can't speak to that historical accuracy, but that's how I view Jon Stewart.

I believe that's exactly how Rogan's audience views him too. I am not a fan of Rogan. But this seems pretty similar. The difference is just that you disagree with Rogan's fans and agree with Stewarts, ok...

The difference is just that you personally think Stewart is generally more trustworthy than Rogan? If so (and I generally agree), why didn't Stewart accept that responsibility instead of trying to abdicate it with "I'm only an entertainer, you can't hold me to the standards of news media". Don't both Stewart and Rogan have the responsibility to in fact be held to the standards of news media, when millions consider them trustworthy as news media? I think both of them are irresponsible and acting in an untrustworthy manner if they say "I'm only an entertainer, I shouldn't be held to the standards of a news source", while being considered a trustworthy news source by many. How do we know if someone is trustworthy as a news source? By evaluating them as a news source, not letting them get out of it with "I'm just an entertainer, you can't hold me to that standard".

One wonders if the you believe the negative of this holds.

If everyone believes you're an adulterer you have a responsibility to cheat on your spouse?

---

In addition, this is why cherry picking is frowned upon. Jon Stewart was responding to the ridiculousness of CNN, Fox, et al, running hit pieces on him, and they started running hit pieces on him because they were showing up in polls as less trustworthy than Jon Stewart.

What you're basically claiming here is that because he's more trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al, he has a responsibility to trustworthiness. AT THE TIME this was happening, the general sentiment was the opposite. That the trustworthiness of CNN, Fox, et al was SO BAD, that even a comedian, whose job it is to take things out of context and stretch the truth for a laugh, was more trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al.

This was all going on during the second Iraq war, where Bush and Cheney was giving speeches about mission accomplished atop aircraft carriers with the banner "Mission Accomplished" while we were still sending more troops.

It was clearly a political maneuver and Jon Stewart was making fun of it whilst CNN, et al, were mostly not calling them out. But people aren't _stupid_, they knew it was ingenuine. That Jon Stewart, a fricking comedian, was the only public forum really highlighting how disingenuous it was is WHY he was getting voted as more trustworthy in polls. Jon Stewart was pointing this out.

And you know what? The people were fucking right. When the 911 responders were getting dicked who was it that fought for them? It sure as shit wasn't CNN, Fox, et al.

---

Without that context, what you're doing here is cherry picking, and I suspect it's because the current "social politics" surrounding joe rogan are causing younger people to let it bleed over onto Jon Stewart.

I'm 46. And a leftist. fwiw, btw.

No, becuase someone thinks you've done something bad doesn't mean you have the have the responsibility to do something bad.

I think Joe Rogan encourages people to build a worldview off of things he says, encourages people to treat him as reliable news, and profits from them doing so, both monetarily and by influence over what people think. He has a huge amount of influence over what people think, based on people believing that he's a straight shooter. Then when called on whether he's doing so responsibly, whether he really is straight-shooting, he says "I'm just an entertainer, it's not a relevant question". I think it's irresponsible and manipulative.

I don't see how that has anything to do with thinking someone is obligated to kill if people believe they are a murderer, that's a ridiculous and silly analogy that just doesn't work.

I think Jon Stewart did/does the same thing as Joe Rogan. He has a huge amount of influence over what people think, based on people believing that he's a straight shooter, and he likes, encourages, and profits from this trust and this influence -- it is intentional. Then when called on whether he's doing so responsibly, he says "I'm just an entertainer, you can't expect that of me or hold me accountable for it, it's not what entertainers do". I think it's irresponsible and manipulative.

Can you be specific about how you think the cases differ?

The point is that people are not obligated, period. This obligation thing is just an attempt at trying to find fault with actions that are completely reasonable.

As for your question, I've already explained the context around Jon Stewart and I have no interest in a culture war.

> The point is that people are not obligated, period.

People? Period? If you truly don't think journalists and political leaders, among others, have a responsibility to behave responsibly with the truth and their methods, and that people are right to expect that of them and evaluate them on it...

Then I guess we have enough of a different worldview that communication is indeed difficult.

I'm not sure what makes something a culture war to you. I am a leftist critisizing both Joe Rogan and Jon Stewart. My problem with Jon Stewart is not with his politics, which I largely agree with. To me, a culture war approach is more thinking that you must pick a side and then insist those on the other side are without virtue and those on yours without flaw -- I am also not interested in that.

You've changed your stance here, before it was that someone is obligated if people believed something about them, now it's that they're obligated if they call themselves a certain thing.

One almost begins to suspect this is all a front for disliking Jon Stewart ;)

You have a good day.

I do not in fact dislike Jon Stewart. I don't know him personally, but I am capable of critiquing people I also think have done positive things, which I think he has. It is unclear to me if you are -- that's the culture war, indeed, thinking that everyone must be either all bad or all good. I do not believe I have changed my stance at all, this is something i have spent some time thinking about and have a thing I think about it. But ok.

The worst are the ones who believe themselves to be objective as you'll never get them to consider that they have a bias. It's like the people who claim to hate drama but are always surrounded by it.

And of course you've thought about Jon Stewart a lot, that's obvious.

It's been common for millenia that a court jester is the one that tells the most truths.

That doesn't abdicate the press of their responsibility, but is instead a sign that we've reverted back to feudal power structures.

Perhaps a lot of people can't tell the difference between a journalist and a comedian pretending to be a journalist.

I struggled with it for a long time, without even knowing I was struggling with it. I fact-checked one of them and realized the truth of the whole comedy situation, and I've viewed them completely differently ever since.

> a comedian pretending to be a journalist

It's a cop out. Often times he's very serious about the political points he's making, even if he packages the point in a joke. The point or argument itself isn't a joke, at all. So you can't do that but then hide behind "I'm just a comedian!" when there's a flaw in your argument.

The vast majority of new is entertainment. If you're in a deep blue area that has never voted for Trump, and you know that you'll never vote for Trump, spending hours a day reading about how terrible Trump is doesn't inform your decision to vote. It's done because you enjoy political celebrity gossip, the same way other people spend hours a day watching entertainment celebrity gossip. You'd be better off spending at least a fraction of the time learning about local races, but very few people do that. I know lots of people that can't tell you most of the people they voted for the day after a primary, but say that they're into "politics" because they spend hours reading and commenting on national news.

Stewart fits right into the political infotainment environment. His show was intentionally laced with jokes, but other than that it was very similar to the highlight of "top news stories" you'd hear on other cable news stations. The depth (shallow) was probably about the same for most news stories as well.

Stewart also, despite his claims of being just a comedian, would go on serious moralistic diatribes. Someone brought up his Cramer interview, and that's a good example. The guy clearly doesn't view himself as just a comedian there. Like Rogan, they're willing to go after and call out others as if they know more than them (whether or not they do is another discussion), but when called out on their failures they pretend they're just goofballs and never pretended to be anything more. It's dishonest.

Personally, I dislike Stewart because he's often prone to hypocritical moral posturing. He took a unflattering picture of Charlie Rangel up and laughed about his "front butt." Then a year later he took Newsweek to task for having a bad picture of Michelle Bachmann, saying that you can argue with her politics but it's never appropriate to attack someone's looks. When the only black writer on the show took issue with one of his impersonations, he yelled at the guy and cut ties with him. Now he's going around lecturing white people about how they have to listen to black people.

To be fair, he was telling that to CNN presenters who were trying to deflect his accusations that they were enabling political theater by saying his show does the same thing, missing the obvious point that CNN should be held to a higher journalistic standard than Comedy Central.

This sounds like you’re referring to his appearance on CNN’s Crossfire in the mid 2000’s; here’s a link for context:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Yep, I think Jon Stewart basically invented this approach.

I believe that he in fact popularized the phrase "fake news" first, to use it to refer to himself, to do exactly this, defend himself when called out, saying "hey i'm just fake news, why are you trying to hold me to real news standards?"

I think it totally paved the way for a lot of misinformation (that now tends to, but not always, be right-wing oriented), and I think it's a mess.

Here's someone else making the same connection in 2016: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trump_jon_stewart_stephen...

It's not just Stewart, it's part of the general merging of "entertainment", "news", and "politics". But I think Stewart is a fore-runner in serving roles that are actually both "politics" (advocacy of positions) and "news" (informing as to what's going on) for their audience, while disclaiming accountability for performing those roles responsibly because "it's just entertainment" -- an approach that has been adopted by Rogan, among others.

[In case you think I am making this critique from the "right" I am most definitely not]

The last decade hasn't been kind to the people who I looked up to when I was a teen.

Turns out the left wasn't any better than the right, they could just be honest when they weren't in power. Once they were, well it's obviously your fault for holding them to the same standards they held the other team to.

Right, I don't take Jon Stewart seriously. He's just a court jester.