5 ms·

I’ve heard Jon Stewart do this. He puts all this effort into political commentary and when he got called out on something said “Hey my show comes on after crank

I’ve heard Jon Stewart do this. He puts all this effort into political commentary and when he got called out on something said “Hey my show comes on after crank yankers!” Oh so when you’re wrong now you shouldn’t be taken seriously, I see.

monocasa 4y ago
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.
thrown_22 4y ago
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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hotpotamus 4y ago
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.
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  Pretty sure the GP is referring to the famous Crossfire takedown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE 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)#Jon_Stewart's_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(American_TV_program...
- amalcon 4y ago
  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).
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    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."
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  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?
  - nradov 4y ago
    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-family-values https://www.npr.org/2005/01/11/4279560/tipper-gore-and-famil...
wrigby 4y ago
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 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
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?
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  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.
  - esyir 4y ago
    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.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      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.
      - badpun 4y ago
        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.
        4y ago
jrochkind1 4y ago
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_colbert.php 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]
nradov 4y ago
Right, I don't take Jon Stewart seriously. He's just a court jester.

monocasa 4y ago

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.

thrown_22 4y ago

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hotpotamus 4y ago

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.

mikepurvis 4y ago
Pretty sure the GP is referring to the famous Crossfire takedown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE 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)#Jon_Stewart's_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(American_TV_program...
amalcon 4y ago
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).
- ethbr0 4y ago
  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."
jrochkind1 4y ago
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?
- nradov 4y ago
  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-family-values https://www.npr.org/2005/01/11/4279560/tipper-gore-and-famil...

wrigby 4y ago

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

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago

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?

jrochkind1 4y ago
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.
- esyir 4y ago
  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.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    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.
    - badpun 4y ago
      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.
      - 4y ago

jrochkind1 4y ago

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_colbert.php 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]

nradov 4y ago

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