5 ms·

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.

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.
      - nradov 4y ago
        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.
      - cafard 4y ago
        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?
        badpun 4y ago
        He's 79 years old. Senile means, as per the thefreedictionary.com: "of, relating to, or characteristic of old age".
      - BitwiseFool 4y ago
        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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_desk
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    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.
wccrawford 4y ago
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.
- user3939382 4y ago
  > 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.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
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 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.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  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".
bnralt 4y ago
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.

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.
    - nradov 4y ago
      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.
    - cafard 4y ago
      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?
      - badpun 4y ago
        He's 79 years old. Senile means, as per the thefreedictionary.com: "of, relating to, or characteristic of old age".
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_desk
- thrown_22 4y ago
  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.

wccrawford 4y ago

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.

user3939382 4y ago
> 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.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

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 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.

jrochkind1 4y ago
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".

bnralt 4y ago

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.