
So I finally got around to reading the massive piece on Jon Stewart in the new issue of Esquire and one thing is certain: Esquire scribe Tom Junod does not like Jon Stewart. He thinks Stewart is a pompous as$hole who’s oblivious to the fact that he’s a pompous as$hole. Further, Junod contends that we are all also oblivious to the fact that the beloved and revered Stewart is, in fact, a pompous as$hole. And he gets away with things most people could never get away with because we all look the other way. Stewart, Junod contends, is completely untouchable because he’s such a likeable humanist. And you know what — he may be right.
Was Jon Stewart being a dick when he was subjecting Jim Cramer to enhanced interrogation? Sure he was. He was also being a dick when he called Tucker Carlson a dick, and when he was preaching to Chris Wallace. But here’s the thing: It doesn’t matter. What matters is that even when Stewart’s a dick, he is never the dick. It is Stewart’s unique talent for coming across as decent and well-meaning when he’s bullying and hectoring and self-righteous. And this is because his talent is not just for comedy and not just for media criticism or truth-telling; it’s for being — for remaining — likable.
Now, you have to understand Jon Stewart is just like everybody else: He can be a dick. His father took off when he was a kid, leaving a hole in his heart approximately the old man’s shoe size. He’s damaged and is capable of doing damage in return, especially in close quarters. There are plenty of Daily Show staffers, present and former, who love and revere their boss for his difficult brilliance. There are also plenty — mostly on the former side — who have been, well, fucked up by him and his need to dominate. When he arrived at The Daily Show in 1999, its humor was goofy and improvisational, based on the interplay between the fake-news host and the fake-news correspondents and dependent on whimsy and happenstance. But Stewart knew what he wanted right away, and it wasn’t that. He wanted the show to be more competitive, almost in a news-gathering sense, and he wanted it to have a point of view, which happened to be his own. There are writers and producers from the first five years of the show, both male and female, who are described as “battered wives”; hell, there are people who used to work for him who are scared to talk about him because they’re scared of not being able to work again. And before he pushed out the show’s co-creator, he notoriously threw a newspaper at her in a story meeting and then, according to a staffer, apologized to her later with the words “Sorry, that was the bad Jon — I try not to let him out…”
…
He’s been saying for ten years that he’s just a guy in the back of the classroom throwing spitballs; but he never gets spitballs thrown at him in return. He mocks without being mocked; he parodies without being parodied. It’s not that he can’t be; there are guys on Jon Stewart’s staff who do a wicked Jon Stewart. But in all the years he’s been doing The Daily Show — in all the years he’s been scribbling on that notepad, closing that mouth around his fist in spasms of mock feeling, and emitting that Olympian whinny — he’s never been parodied on Saturday Night Live. Why? Because according to Jim Downey, the longtime SNL writer who last year wrote the great Keith Olbermann parody for Ben Affleck, “you can only parody comedians when they’re not funny. Jon’s funny. Plus, we all like him.”




Always ruffles my feathers a little when he revels in the way he blindsided McCain.
Used to watch him all the time. Now I never do. Junod is right, he used to be funny and now he’s just preachy… and its getting progressively worse.
Colbert, on the other hand, is killing it nightly.
This guy is completely right. He may be quick and witty but he’s just as bad as the politicians he criticizes. Jon Stewart hides behind his comedian status in order to stick it to people he deems is necessary to stick it to. The man is not God, contrary to some peoples inane beliefs.
It wouldn’t be even a small deal except that people take the Daily Show as a news source, and it isn’t. The thing is Stewart et. al. never make that clear. When they are sticking it to someone like Cramer you would think you were watching a new version of “Crossfire” and the guy who is not on John’s side has no good answers, during interviews they find the most ridiculous supporters of a cause they disagree with and let them build their own strawman. When they get called on it however they are all “We are just comedians, journalistic ethics, standards of fair debate, or balanced view points are not required.”
The show can be a hilarious comedy, but is a poor vehicle for information. Too bad a lot of people don’t acknowledge that.
Never make it clear? It’s the first thing Stewart says in interviews: “We’re not a news show.” The entire problem with Fox News is this attempt to pretend they’re not biased. Still, after all the times they’ve been caught out.
Junod forgets, and I think willfully, that the entire reason Stewart is basically the modern Walter Cronkite is he dedicates a lot of his job to pointing out the hypocrisy of various news networks. And I think it’s kind of telling that he does this for a joke and people take him seriously because of it.
At the end of the day, I’m still scared that far more people take Fox News seriously.
They never make it clear that it’s a comedy show, not a news source? Your first clue might be that it’s on COMEDY FUCKING CENTRAL.
Jon even stated himself, “you’re a news show. My program follows puppets making prank phone calls.” I believe this was during the Carlson smackdown.
He’s 100% right – you don’t need to be part of the mainstream media, to be allowed to hold them accountable.
Someone calling Stewart ‘the modern-day Walter Cronkite’ says it all, doesn’t it.
I don’t have a problem with him. I have a problem with the sheeple out there that can’t tell the difference between comentary and journalism.
Stewart needs to back off his own monologue a bit and he’ll be fine.
@CarlinFan
He’s beloved and trusted by an entire generation. If the label fits…
The show can be a hilarious comedy, but is a poor vehicle for information.
Sorry, you’re completely wrong.
In 2004, the Annenberg Center did a detailed study a few years back, looking at how well informed voters were about political issues. Viewers of “The Daily Show” did better than viewers of the cable news networks and regular readers of major newspapers.
In 2007, the Pew Research Center did a similar study, and once again, “Daily Show” viewers came out on top, ahead of every other news source out there in print, television or radio.
[thinkprogress.org]
But Stewart himself has said repeatedly, these results only show what a shitty, shitty job the rest of the media does.
That piece was one of the most condescending articles I think I have ever read.
Wow this article is rife with problems, from the faux-pschological profile to the all too predictable use of anonymous sources (who are of course, too afraid to be named…too afraid of Mr. “You ever see a $20 bill on weed???”…right). All media is biased and I stopped watching all news sources including the Daily Show in the runup to the 2008 election because John was being incredibly unfair to everyone but Obama. However, (and I say this as an Independent) the Daily Show is one of the few places where you can see a respectful debate that doesn’t devolve into yelling and predictable logical fallacies (one of the reasons I don’t care for “Real Time” anymore).
-h’s +edit button
They never make it clear that it’s a comedy show, not a news source…and I’m talking about Fox News. Thanks folks, I’ll be here all week.