Tom Brokaw: Jon Stewart's Role Is "Important"

Tom Brokaw gave The Daily Iowan an interview, and one of the subjects they discussed was the role of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in disseminating news to a younger generation. Brokaw said he has spoken to Stewart about this and reassured him that "what he is doing is important":

DI: A lot of the younger generation are getting a lot of their news from "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report." Is that eroding into the nightly news?

Tom Brokaw: Jon Stewart and I have talked about this a lot, and it troubles him a lot because he is a very serious consumer of news. I keep reassuring him, because I don't think he really needs to be reassured, that what he is doing is important because what he is doing is bringing people to the subject matter, and they can't watch Jon for half-an-hour, and they can't watch Stephen for half-an-hour, without having some interest what else is going on in the world.

Watch the full interview here.

Related: Tom Brokaw: Evening News Today Is "A Struggle"

Comments

[NtFourSale]

Anyone ever notice that Brokaw has to inhale through his mouth? Drives me insane.
Schhh.

[Leper]

I have to inhale through my mouth. F* you.

[strifeknot]

Chill out. At least you're not on the tee vee being insufferable.

[Leper]

If I weren't chilled, I would have spelled out the word "fuck".

[mediamarv]

And who says he needs Brokaw's approval??

Brokaw is old school, big voice, but never challenged the powers that be! He would be better off explaining to the public just how msm, of which he is intimately knowledgeable, got to be in such a bad way.

[bbbbmer]

Neither Brokaw are relevant. Brokaw is a fossilized former GE suckup groomed into position by corporate combs to serve their propaganda interests. John Stewart has succumbed, or is it 'suck-umbed', to the same interests trading popularity capital earned in his first fresh year of political comic relief for a steady paycheck and oatmeal attempts at wit dumbed down for broad but shallow consumption. He's about as funny as SNL has become, which isn't.

[Durango]

So who in the Corporate Media screwed up?

How did they let Jon Stewart have his own show ?

He is obviously not qualified. He is intelligent not ignorant. He studies the issues, he doesn't pontificate on things he knows nothing about. He is polite, not bombastic. He seeks honest dialogue with folks from every corner of the political spectrum, instead of simply reinforcing his own ignorant views.

So how did he ever make on to television?

And does the corporate suit who gave his show the green light still have a job? Because he/she certainly doesn't have any idea of what passes for news, commentary or humor in this vast wasteland of television.

The corporate hacks job is to dumb down America. How did they pass on someone who is intelligent?

[realityisbetter]

The only reason people like Stewart and Colbert made it on the air was by disguising them as Comedy. They are far too competent to ever have been chosen for any "real" news show.

But alas, now comedy has more substance than the news itself....so sad.

[NicoleAnonymous]

What are you talking about? Didn't Bob Woodruf almost die in Iraq? You really think some overpaid comedien deserves more admiration than him? There are LOTS of journalists who risk their lives to bring people stories from all over the world and they don't get paid much for it.

I understand Jon's fan club is here but this all-mainstream-news-is-beneath-us-they're-not-smart-or-sophisticated-the-way-Stewart-and-Colbert attitude is lame. And apparently the "corporate hacks" don't have ANY problems paying smart white guys to have talk shows but smart women are just too "dangerous" for them.

[totalliberal]

"What are you talking about? Didn't Bob Woodruf almost die in Iraq?"


Listen my friend, I worked in the news business for many years as a cameraman. Covered 4 wars. In reality these guys become war junkies who think they can make the chops by getting their cameraman to record explosions and dead bodies while getting their kisser on TV. They are just like the military brass who see wars as a way too promotion. Nothing any of them ever does has anything to do with selfless journalism or patriotism. Been there, seen that.
(And I'm not talking about the non-coms.)

[Durango]

I admire most of the reporters covering the war in Iraq. However I NEVER see them on the Evening News. Probably because their names are Moham, or Ahmed or some other Arabic name.

If the Corporate News is so comptent how come I HAVE NEVER SEEN A REPORT FROM AN ARAB JOURNALIST? Not on the Nightly News anyhow.

Have you noticed that? Have you ever wondered why that is?

Why was the NOT ONE PROGRAM, not one, broadcast about the background, history, politics or culture of Afghanistan or Iraq before the respective invasions?

It is ironic that the best mind in political reporting and the news is on a comedy show. But not surprising. The corporate hacks have destroyed what used to be an incredible American institution. The NEWS!

P.S. I don't get my news from Stewart and Colbert. I get commentary on the news. And they are not often wrong.

[NicoleAnonymous]

What is the difference between satire and just plain regular political jokes? Isn't all comedy satirical in some sense?

I think it's very scary that people would get their news from Jon Stewart considering he has never publically mentioned the Israel and the occupation on his show although that is really an important issue for this country. Although I don't blame him for being scared because it's very scary to talk about that - maybe if someone held his hand while he did it and gave him a little blankie to hold, Jon might be able to actually talk about it. Rosie would talk about it but she isn't scared of anyone.

[plainsman]

In addition, Stewart wouldn't label it Israel and the occupation. He, normally unless its something along the lines of China/Tibet, doesn't take sides when reporting or satirizing foreign issues. Case in point: He's had both Musharraf and Mark Siegel, adviser to the late Benazir Bhutto, on his show, letting each air their point of view without pushing his own personal viewpoint.

[plainsman]

Really? He's never mentioned Israel?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=generic_tag_israel&itemId=105174

He just hasn't brought it up recently.

[NicoleAnonymous]

It looks like I was wrong - he doesn't really talk about the occupation though.

[Durango]

This might be the first time on any post here that I have seen someone admit they were wrong.

Good for you.

[writeaway]

What occupation would that be? I presume you are thinking Israel is 'occupying' Palestinian lands, or are you talking about the occupation of Indian lands from the Atlanta to the Pacific or the Indians who came across the Alaska/Bering straits to occupy this country. Who was in Palestine prior to the Palestinians? Where do the Neanderthals fit in? Homo Sapiens killed them all off I guess. Everybody came out of Africa they say. Where do the Alantians fit in?

[Durango]

Maybe, just maybe, he can't find any humor in that tragedy?

[NicoleAnonymous]

But many Jews don't have any problem making jokes about the Holocaust so apparentlly they do find humor in tragedy.

Anyway if you can't laugh about some things in life then you will go crazy and have to be locked up in a mental institution.

[indypete]

Isn't it a sad commentary on the state of the news biz when court jesters Jon and his protege Stephen are more accurate and informative than entire news networks. Jon single-handedly turned my news perception on its head when I started watching his show a few years back. Not since I left the old country to adopt Sam as my Uncle 38 years ago have I seen such accurate satire... and, believe me, after thousands of years of oddball and corrupt government, we brits know satire!

[Hagrid]

I admire Stewart because he is obviously well-read and very intelligent.

He does cut through the BS, when it comes to politics. WE, Americans need that.

[Darsan54]

Jon Stewart does serve an important function like an editorial cartoonist. What is most amazing is he actually conducts better interviews than his "serious" journalistic counter-parts. He doesn't allow his subjects to slide as much as the MSM would. This is amazing because he also does it in such an entertaining, cordial fashion. Journalists could learn a lot from him.

[liberalissima]

Yes, I agree with you; Jon also allows his guest to speak freely without interrupting them as Faux News hosts do to anybody that does not agree with them. I watch John Stewart every night; not only I get the real news, but I kind of enjoy it even when the news are horrible. It is just the way he presents it with his graceful sarcasm. One of the worse hosts of any program is Chris Mathews of MSNBC; he is always trying to convince the viewer that he knows much more about the answer that the person he asks the questions to. Talking about arrogance!!!!

[PlanetKansas]

Call me an elitist. I fit the stereotyped demographic of listening to NPR and Bill Moyers and recent surveys revealed that my types regularly watch Stewart and Colbert, which is true, I love these guys.

What worries me is their sophistication is lost on the typical Comedy Central viewer who strike me as knuckle dragging troglodytes who want jokes, not truth. Comedy Central is filled with juvenile programming in search of cheap frat boy yucks about poop and sex. The commercials aired during Colbert and Stewart, comic book movies, video games, baldness cures and insipid cars, reinforce who the real target audience they are playing to.

They are the best source of news out there, but I worry their intellegence is lost to the not-so-intellegent.

[strifeknot]

You're describing Carlos Mencia's fans. I doubt there's much crossover between his audience and those of Stewart and Colbert.

[brainlego]

There has been studies

'Daily Show' viewers ace political quiz
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/

Pew Survey Finds Most Knowledgeable Americans Watch 'Daily Show' and 'Colbert'
Original link is gone, so google for it.

[bknott]

For an elitist, you sound a little dense. I have a feeling the sporadic "troglodyte" knows how to use the remote when his frat boy show is over, if the Daily Show is too much for his little brain. And most of Stewart's viewers probably enjoy a couple of the shows on Comedy Central. I know I do, even though I'm still able to follow Morning Edition every day.

[writeaway]

Bill Moyers, conductor of the suck-up 'interview' with Obama? There is a demographic you fit, the latte sipping elitist demo/

[plainsman]

Elitist.

[kipmartin]

what a pile of crap. i love the humor on CC despite my MA in Linguistics and BA in Eng. Lit.

you may find PG Wodehouse and HL Mencken funny but i prefer Harry and Kumar, the Simpsons, and Austin Powers. seriously, i work hard during the day and i dont want humor i have to think about. i want to see Curly getting poked in the eyes. your elitism is nauseating and i hope you have a 'milk out the nose' experience next time you watch 'Fawlty Towers'.

[NicoleAnonymous]

I agree that they seem really elitist and condescending. I don't think the three stooges are funny but I've seen Faulty Towers before and thought it was funny but I like british humor. I think the funniest thing is making fun of people and how absurd they are.

Once when I was shopping on Melrose Avenue we say Fabio drive by in a car - we were laughing about it all day. The best humor is simple.

[UkieOlie]

I love Wodehouse and Family Guy and The Simpsons. Why bitch about the lowbrow stuff. We can all pick and choose.

[kansasexpat]

Sometimes when Stewart goes for the cheap joke and gets a big laugh from his audience, you can actually see his dismay, as if he is disappointed in them. But it's true that you cannot come cold to his show -- if you don't know what's in the news, you won't get the jokes.

That said, I love both him and Colbert. They make me want to be a better news consumer.

[stardog]

When Jon Stewart got the Daily Show gig, it most certainly wasn't to be a legitimate news source. The fact that he is credible and still funny is amazing. His spot on Crossfire with Begala and Tucker was one of the best moments on television in the last decade.

[speakingtruth2power]

That truth in politics is only spoken on the Comedy Channel

is the perfect indictment of today's corporatist network news.

The amount of censorship and Bushit we get now is fascist.

[plainsman]

Exactly.

[TRichards]

Sure, it's important. The complete abdication of responsibility on the part of the networks and the "personalities" that pose as newsmen on cable have made Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Frontline the only quality left on TV regarding news. Stewart likes to pretend it's just comedy, but time and again, The Daily Show has managed to hoist the pols on their own petards by playing, back-to-back, the contradictory and often outright dishonest statements they've been making.

There is nothing quite like contrasting Hillary's comments early in the campaign (stressing the importance of the voter) to her later assertion that only the superdelegates have the information to make an informed decision . . . but the voters have a part to play too. I don't know why Obama's campaign doesn't use the clips to show just which one of them is the elitist.

[pkafin]

Because Obama's plan involves marginalizing the Florida voters and the Michigan voters.

While the Democrats made some rules that seem to exclude sitting the delegations from these two states, they did not rule that the voters in those states are irrelevant.

What happens if Obama has a pledged delegate lead (but not enough to win without superdelegates) and Hillary has a popular vote lead (which could happen with or without Florida and Michigan)? At that point, what's a superdelegate to do?

What would be "more respectful" of the voter in this not entirely unlikely scenario?

Luckily for me, I will be happy to vote for either of these two candidates in the general election. I have no problem with these two, who seem to have roughly equal support among Democrats in the USA, battling it out until someone wins. I, like the candidates and unlike many posters here, understand that this is a hard fought political contest in which, at the end, there will be a winner and a loser. I don't begrudge the contestants actually trying to win the contest.

I do think, however, that the superdelegates are in an unenviable position.

[ZeMongoose]

It wasn't Obama (or Clinton for that matter) who disenfranchised Michigan & Florida Democrats. It was the scumbag party insiders for each of those states who blatantly violated clearly established rules in moving up their primary dates. The names of these party insiders need to be made public and each and every one last one need to be held fully accountable for their actions.

[jmyoung666]

Without Florida and Michigan, Hillary has no possibility of getting the popular vote.

Seating those delegates without some compromise would be patently unfair as Obama's name was not on the Michigan ballot and in both primaries there was no campaigning, which gives Hillary the benefit of name recognition.