Why Did Jon Stewart Apologize?

My take on "The Daily Show" is a tad personal, though this has faded through time. In late-1997/early-'98, I was swamped with "Mr. Mike," scheduled for release in July '98. I had spent the previous three years consumed by Michael O'Donoghue, the National Lampoon and SNL, and was pretty burned out, wrestling with publishing company bullshit, making sure that every change had been set, anticipating wrath and anger from who-knew-where, given the wild mix of egos and temperaments I'd dealt with. And so on.

Then an acquaintance at Comedy Central suggested that I submit a package to TDS. With a book about a comedy legend coming out, and having already written for Bill Maher, TDS would be the perfect next move. While it wasn't my favorite show, I did find a lot of it funny. One bit I loved was a parody of the Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy, with the Star of David on the White House. That an American comedy show even knew what ZOG was amused me, so I began to write numerous fake news stories and remote pieces.

Soon, I was helped along by a guy who knew the show's producer, which gave me added edge. TDS was then hosted by Craig Kilborn, who was a tad too smug for my taste, that Sports Center snark empty and obvious. But much of the writing behind Kilborn was first-rate, no surprise given that talents like A. Whitney Brown were involved. This inspired me to really bring it, which was a test since I was wearily emerging from book writing mode, a different set of muscles from tapping out bits. After a couple of weeks, I sent my finished submission around to a few friends, testing the waters.

The reactions were uniform: this was good stuff, perhaps a bit dark for TDS, but solid. The package then went to the show's producer, the early feedback upbeat. But that's typical. The promise of helping a franchise always elicits smiles and thumbs' up -- until the moment of truth, when the decision to allow this-or-that lunatic on staff is made. It seemed that my material was indeed too dark for TDS. That was the gist I was getting. But I also think that it was too political. Some of my references went beyond generalized definitions and specifically dealt with US criminality and all that goes with it. There were plenty of mainstream jokes as well, but not enough to lighten the dark shit. Whatever early rawness TDS possessed, the show was moving toward a more acceptable place in the culture. Around this time, Whitney Brown left TDS, further weakening its satirical punch.

When Kilborn left to engage Conan O'Brien in late night, Jon Stewart took over, ensuring that TDS would become the mainstream darling it remains today. Nothing against Stewart, who does a fine if sometimes frenzied job behind the desk. But before TDS, Stewart was not known as a satirist, certainly not in a Paul Krassner/Barry Crimmins/Whitney Brown way. Then again, had he been as cutting as those three, Stewart would never have been given the TDS gig in the first place. Stewart's popularity, especially among white liberals, ensures that he'll remain pretty much in the same spot -- so long as the ratings hold, and Comedy Central doesn't lose significant ad revenue.

At best, Jon Stewart serves as a corporate release valve, letting off permissible steam when the American machine overheats. This is pretty much what "satire" has been reduced to. The Realist, Terry Southern, and the original Lampoon have never been deader.

Also, most American comics are deeply apolitical; and those who riff on "current events" usually operate well within shared assumptions about politics, history, and US power. Which is why Stewart's recent comment about Harry Truman stood out.

Responding to Cliff "Torture can be good" May's point that if Bush is a war criminal, then Truman's nuking of Hiroshima must have been an even worse crime, given the comparable damage, and Stewart's outrage at Bush (which Stewart bases on the fantasy notion that the Bush gang undermined basic American "values," a popular liberal talking point that'll never die). Amazingly, Stewart agreed that yes, Truman was a war criminal, though Stewart would've preferred a demonstration explosion near Japan before moving to the human ash/melted flesh phase.

Domestic reactionaries went predictably nuts. They may be in the electoral minority for now, but they know red meat when when they smell it. And nothing sets them off like a "media elite liberal" like Stewart besmirching our nation's fine name and God-fearing reputation. While there have been serious debates about Truman's use of nuclear terror, countless Americans of varied views still think that Truman did the right thing, for reasons that run from the million-Americans-dead-through-land-invasion argument, to the simple, more pleasing position that the US can do whatever it wants, especially in war, and that the idea that America commits war crimes is insane if not treasonous.

Up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and after, US planes firebombed numerous Japanese cities, unleashing mass murder on the civilian population, something that had the Tokyo trials after the war been at all impartial, would decidedly rank with imperial Japan's monstrous conduct in Asia. But war crimes trials are never impartial and serve to justify and excuse crimes committed by those powers conducting the trials. Stewart could've added the reason why there was an Asian war in the first place, hostilities that began well before Pearl Harbor. Hell, he could've mentioned Truman's war crimes in Korea, killing millions.

Instead, Stewart did what well-regarded mainstream entertainers do when expressing an unpopular opinion. He groveled for forgiveness.

"The other night we had on Cliff May. He was on, we were discussing torture, back and forth, very spirited discussion, very enjoyable. And I may have mentioned during the discussion we were having that Harry Truman was a war criminal. And right after saying it, I thought to myself that was dumb. And it was dumb. Stupid in fact. So I shouldn't have said that, and I did. So I say right now, no, I don't believe that to be the case. The atomic bomb, a very complicated decision in the context of a horrific war, and I walk that back because it was in my estimation a stupid thing to say. Which, by the way, as it was coming out of your mouth, you ever do that, where you're saying something, and as it's coming out you're like, 'What the f**k, nyah?' And it just sat in there for a couple of days, just sitting going, 'No, no, he wasn't, and you should really say that out loud on the show.' So I am, right now, and, man, ew. Sorry. And, Warren G. Harding was a [bleeped, unintelligible]."

When an American "satirist" apologizes for stating the truth, you can really appreciate "free expression" in a corporate-owned culture. Still, I enjoy Stewart, despite his pathetic ass-covering. Besides, he has to keep TDS anchor chair clean and warm for when Seth Meyers replaces him. It's all about continuity, baby.

Comments

[WarSkeptic]

Don't know how I missed this article

I was incredibly disappointed with Stewarts apology.
If dropping atomic bombs and torture aren't war crimes then what are?

[klastos]

All wars are crimes. Dropping the bomb to end the war is different(and could be argued both ways, I don't live in an alternate reality where we didn't drop it) from capturing someone, disarming them and then torturing them when they cease being a threat.

[devans00]

It never ceases to amuse me how much people's panties get in a twist over something that happened on the Daily Show. It's a news parody show on a comedy network. What part of that don't people get?

I took Jon Stewart's apology as a poke at the mainstream Republicans who apologized to Rush Limbaugh after they said things he didn't like. The end. Jon's education, personal politics or position on the topic are beside the point.

Dennis Perrin comes off as someone fishing for a writing job as he lets us know he's too cool and DARK to work on The Daily Show. If the article started about the 6th paragraph, it'd be easier to accept him as a left leaning cultural commentator. A voice concerned about the lack of diverse points of view in public discussion of America's ugly side.

Personally, I don't think the onus is only on comics to educate everyone on every point of view on a topic. The fact comics even bring up the topic to get people talking is somthing.

Want credibility or education on a topic? Go to PBS or an institute of higher learning. Don't come to Comedy Central.

[Alf Lang]

The Daily Show is a news source that has no pretense in the comic delivery of news. It exposes the absurdity of putative "reputable" news sources and the inanity of the news itself. it does not pretend to garner credence; however it questions the credibility of mass news coverage.

[PaxMundis]

"
I took Jon Stewart's apology as a poke at the mainstream Republicans who apologized to Rush Limbaugh after they said things he didn't like. The end. Jon's education, personal politics or position on the topic are beside the point."

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The apology was not placed in any kind of satirical context. The fact that Stewart made a lame Warren Harding joke afterwards showed how ill-at-ease and out of place the apology was.

[Durango]

Why did Stewart apologize?

Because, as he stated, it was a stupid thing to say.

And Mrs Stewart raised a very fine boy. One who knows how to admit his mistakes.

Unlike nearly everyone else in the media. Or in public life for that matter.

Having said that I don't consider Truman to be a War Criminal. But I do consider the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan to be a crime. As does my father, who was scheduled to be one of the first troops ashore in the invasion.

I believe like Hemingway said: "Don't ever think that war, no matter how necessary .or how justified, is anything but a crime."

[Fernando Cavallo]

While I think Truman should have invited high Japanese officials to a deserted island in the Pacific and shown them what one atomic bomb could do (we had three at the time) his final decision is not below nuance. To imply that Stewart is caving in to pressure is to ignore the last eight years of biting, accurate and sober political critique which hardly minced any words.

I also sense -I could be wrong- some sour grapes here. John Stewart is, decidedly, not "At best... a corporate release valve, letting off permissible steam when the American machine overheats." He is one of the very few people in the media who didn't cave to political pressure during the Bush years and often spoke truth to power, something SORELY LACKING in mainstream media. I guess he might not be edgy enough for Mr. Perrin, but then again, TDS wasn't very funny or influential before Stewart came on board.

[PaxMundis]

Well, its not sour grapes on my part. I love TDS, but I was very dissapointed with Stewart, in particular because the original bit wasn't on the show but only online.It seemed a sad attempt at savcing face.

[S1m0n]

Hiroshima. Yeah, that's funny. Hilarious.

[Alf Lang]

Dennis Perrin expresses my sentiments in this short article. When I watch the talented Jon Stewart, I expect satire. And people infer what they can from satire -- either making light of truth or falsehood. Jon, you don't have to interpret your intent for us. Many of your viewers understand. The apology simply was incongruous to the "nature" of The Daily Show that it just came out disingenuous. Or maybe that was the intent? Notwithstanding, don't underestimate the intelligence of the viewership of The Comedy Channel.

[Maxiesid]

So, a man makes a statement in the heat of an argument that he really doesn't believe is true.. then he apologizes for making it.. seems fairly straightforward and honorable to me, and in keeping with the fact that Stewart DOES respect the intellect of his audience. I know, we aren't used to people who actually take time to admit to being wrong about something... it comes as a shock, but out here in the real world it happens all the time.

[Alf Lang]

It's hard to infer what Stewart truly believes given the grave and didactic way he presented his initial statements against his seemingly disingenuous apology a day later. As Perrin states in the article (and as I believe): "When an American 'satirist' apologizes for stating the truth, you can really appreciate 'free expression' in a corporate-owned culture."

[PaxMundis]

See, I dont think he doesn't believe this. He has made mention of the parallel between Japanese officials waterboarding Americans to get info about the bombs and our current situation. He has said that we should at least apologize to the Japanese officials whom we executed for waterboarding. So I think his views are very complex, and he caved into pressure.

[CantStopUsNow]

In a span of 7 years, Country A has killed about a million people from Country B. Country B has a nuclear weapon and uses it against Country A, killing a million Country A citizens to prevent any more Country B deaths. Did Country B just commit a war crime? I'll tell you who Country B is as soon as you answer the question. I'll wait...

[zepfan81]

Yes it's immoral and a crime, but I would've done it.

[shimari]

Don't bother.

[Helpcomputer]

Any lawyer worth their salt would ask for a lot more facts in your little hypothetical.
You can have a moral opinion about this, but not a legal opinion on whether a war crime was committed.

[stonesoup]

How can anyone say that what we did was right. The two cities we bombed were full of nothing but women, children and old men, Why didn't we bomb a city where there was a military facility or bomb factories? Why did we go after the helpless who were not responsible for what their government did.

[JillQ]

Both cities were had factories that produced military amunitions.

[ghost7]

It's not just the right that thinks Truman wasn't a war criminal, that view is shared by probably a majority of moderates and a sizable number of libs (like myself).

Stewart's apology was right on the money; it was a horrific war where the decision was more complex than latter-day yahoos like Dennis Perrin can use this to play Monday morning quarterback and fill his article quota at the same time.

Perhaps Mr Perrin would like to discuss the fate of millions of Chinese at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army? Maybe a visit to the library, a few memoirs and a history book or two might convince cementheads like him that there perhaps were some circumstance where it was warranted.

In light of the German civilian population's support of the Nazi regime, the Japanese population's support of their regime's treatment of occupied civilians in China and the Philippines, the brutal treatment of POWs and harsh American military experience in island hopping attacks and the fact that there's little doubt the two bombings saved hundreds of thousands of American GI and Marines lives I find it difficult to work up much sympathy for the victims of Dresden or Nagasaki.

Unfortunately there will historically challenged always be bozos like Perrin second guessing.

[Helpcomputer]

There are a lot of moral gray areas in war. Atrocities are committed by both sides, whether on purpose, by mistake or some stroke of luck. Personally, I think that the aggressor nation typically occupies the moral low ground. Japan and Germany during WWII, the U.S. during the Spanish-American War and the Iraq war. Germany had no right to sink civilian ships. But I have no problem with the Allied bombing of Dresden or other valid strategic targets.

But having the moral high ground doesn't give you a free pass. You don't have the right to brutalize your POW's, regardless of how the enemy treats theirs. And if you have the power to incinerate entire cities, it doesn't give you the moral right to use it.

Practically speaking, Truman had several options besides ordering the mass murder of 2 civilian population centers. He could've bombed an empty island or invited a team of observers to a test. But he didn't do any of these things.

You could argue that he bombed Hiroshima to show that the U.S. was willing to actually deploy such a weapon. But there's no excuse for Nagasaki. Japan was trying to surrender, but how do you surrender in less than 3 days? It was strictly political posturing, for Russia's benefit.

So, yes, I would argue that Truman was a war criminal. If only for the bombing of Nagasaki. But then, under the Geneva Conventions, all U.S. presidents are war criminals.

[PaxMundis]

As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, when they had the Nuremburg trials, there was a very definite notion that "if we did it, then it's not a war crime." That's why invading a country is considered a war crime but firebombing a city is not.

[JillQ]

You are so right. Too many have come to conclusions without doing any research. The Truman administration also did something that many past war admins (including Bush 43) had never done: they studied their enemy. It was determined that the Japanese imperialist government would never agree to unconditional surrender. Japan produced kamikaze pilots and a "death before dishonor" (surrender) mindset. It is truly unfortunate that some do not understand that the projected death toll for BOTH Allies and Japanese with a mainland assault would have eclipsed that of the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And let's not forget that it actually took TWO bombs before they surrendered. The first actually killed their people- a test bomb (with no casualties) would not have changed their minds.

I love Jon Stewart and his apology was necessary. As a Truman historian, I appreciated it.

[Duncan1951]

Hm. If we're not going to second-guess Mr. Truman, maybe we shouldn't second-guess the Japanese either? After all, they were fighting Communist terrorist bandits in China and elsewhere in Asia; if they'd conducted themselves like soft-hearted gentlemen, the terrorists would have won. (An argument later used by the US to justify killing millions in Vietnam. In light of the US civilian population's support of the Republocrat regime, the brutal treatment of Vietnamese prisoners, and harsh Vietnamese experience of napalm, free-fire zones, and other atrocities by the US invaders, then I presume you would endorse a decision by the Vietnamese to use nuclear weapons on Topeka Kansas if only it would have ended the war. I would find it difficult to work up much sympathy for the victims of such a bombing.)

The basic flaw in your argument is that the fact that the Other Side committed war crimes does not justify committing war crimes yourself. And any war criminal worth his salt can come up with plenty of offenses committed by the Other Side.

It might even be possible to admit frankly that, yes, the atomic bombing of Japan was a war crime, but it ended the war end quickly and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. (Would you feel differently if the bombing hadn't ended the war? Is this just a matter of You Can't Argue with Success?) But even such an admission seems to be beyond the ability of many people.

[TRYKER]

The long drawn out post labored to find fault with Stewart, which seems was the intention, not so much a matter of principle as a desire to whack Stewart. That was substantiated when at the end he presumes Seth Myers to be superior to Stewart and ready to take his job...an opinion that most of Stewart's followers don't seem to agree with. We will grow old with Jon Stewart, thank you very much.

[raker]

Stewart is very smart and very talented. His satire is pitch perfect. His tone's not being the same as some other mordant comedian's tone is irrelevent. Optimists, skeptical ones, can be good satirists.

Stewart made two fouls in the interview with May: May, like the best prepared boy in class, trapped and tricked Stewart with the Truman question, and he allowed May to pass off as fact that Bush tortured only the most dangerous terrorists, an obvious lie. But so what. Stewart does something most of us can't do, the incredible, phenomenal, unbelievable thing of being extremely funny and more insightful than any ten reporters and he does it four nights a week. It's not his job to be the country's reporter. Go after David Gregory and the rest for leaving the void that we look to Jon Stewart to fill.

[raker]

Tonight, Brian Williams devoted five minutes of his twenty-two minute program to a weather report. (If NBC buys the Playboy Channel, get ready for the Nightly News to do segments on Turn Ons and Turn Offs.) You see why it's wrong to go after Jon Stewart for not being a great news man?

[raker]

The following night Brian Williams did five minutes on a story from 1973. It seems, if women were paid for washing the dishes, etc, they'd get paid hundreds of thousand of dollars a year! Chauffeur, nurse, therapist, omigod! Let's hear it for the ladies. They won't be stuck in the secretarial pool for long. Isn't that Women's Lib something.

If you're unhappy with the quality of the news, go after the news guys, not the comedians.

[Helpcomputer]

Stewart's fundamental weakness isn't his debating skill. It's how he processes his political thinking. He's influenced more by personality than by policy. When the two conflict, he's genuinely confused.

For example, he's said that in 2000, if McCain were the GOP nominee he'd have voted for him over Kerry. Even though he was against almost the entire Republican platform. He personally liked McCain, and that had an undue influence on his political reasoning.

I think this confusion stems from the fact that he was apolitical most of his life. He didn't develop a comprehensive worldview in which to contextualize news and current events. Sometimes this can be a strength. But more often it just leaves him more confused as he absorbs more information, because he can't put it all together into a cohesive whole.

So when he gets into a debate, he already has a fog of confusion. So his motive isn't necessarily to win the debate, but to alleviate his confusion. He can pick up on hypocrisy and illogic and point them out, but he has a hard time mounting counterarguments.

He's also hampered by his discomfort with tension and a need to go for a joke, which often derails a train of thought.

[raker]

The thing is, Stewart has no responsibility to be anything in regard to politics or journalism, because he's neither a politician nor a journalist. Fortunately for us, his satiric comedy illuminates political and social issues that the politicians and journalists work together to obscure. We should be grateful to Stewart and Colbert for what they are and not so quick to beat them up for not being everything we need.

[zepfan81]

Maybe Jon Stewart apologized because he doesn't see the world in black and white. Perhaps, unlike many people on all sides of the political spectrum, he realizes that all wars are essentially crimes. I have never understood the "moral" war argument. War is two or more factions using violence against one another to further their own self-interest. In order to win each side is going to be at LEAST as brutal as their opponent. The idea a nation can ALWAYS go into a war and fight it according to strict rules AND win is absolutely insane. And if a nation isn't in to win it than what's the point? I'm not anti-war or pro-war. I simply understand human nature dictates for any number of reasons human beings will, on occasion, kill one another wholesale . I just have enough common sense not to put attach words like "just," "legal", and "moral" to the killing of thousands, perhaps millions of people. War crimes!?!? We really think we can put rules survival? PLEASE!!

[oregonbird]

You don't agree with Stewart's opinion. His opinion didn't agree with what he said during a difficult interview, and he walked it back stylishly and honestly. Nobody in the media was giving him any attention over his Hiroshima remark, it wasn't on the radar at ComedyCentral. It was a personal matter that Stewart felt needed clarifying.

You don't agree with his opinion. That doesn't make Stewart a sell-out; it just gives you the opportunity (very, very brief, I notice -- your piece fell off the main blogroll pretty darn fast, huh?) to put your name into the mix. Here's a cookie. Go home and keep writing those "edgy" skits. Take on the big boys, tiger.

[Lahonda]

...now this, I agree with.

It bothered Stewart to have said something he didn't believe was accurate or true.

[benkj]

i can see the point of your argument. 99% of the time Jon Stewart engages in a very rational, well thought out conversation with his guests showing deep understanding of the subject they are talking about and he is the first one to accept if he has no clue if the other person is talking about. He is magnanimous in accepting were he lacks. I'd say most of the time he reads the book before interviewing the author. Or atleast he gives the impression of it. So I have to think he atleast reads the glossary. I watched all his show bar none through Daily show website. There is no other media website except his and Colertnation which allows users to see exactly what was on the show on a specific day. So you could easily hold him accountable if he is contradicting himself. Also I am a regular of SNL. I am not a comedy critic. I just enjoy watching those shows. I know from an audience perspective Seth Meyers is a very talented guyn but Seth Meyer is no Jon Stewart. Maybe someday he can be somewhere near Jon Stewart if he work hard for it.

[LizGibbings]

Okay, I'll admit I don't know enough about the circumstances behind Truman's decision to form an opinion with complete confidence. The only thing I do know about it were the effects, OBVIOUSLY devastating. To judge the results alone - I'd say war criminal no doubt, anyone would.
I also admit I don't know why Jon changed his mind after the fact. Its one thing to claim he was forced to by "Comedy Central/Viacom corporate-machine," and maybe he was. But one of the reasons I respect Jon Stewart so much is that he isn't afraid to admit he was wrong after getting a chance to think or learn more about something. So, since I don't know for sure, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

One thing I DO know for sure: If you think Seth Meyers has the talent to replace Jon Stewart for even one DAY, you're kidding yourself. Even if, for some unfathomable reason, you think Meyers can do a better job (he can't, I've watched that skit), you've got to remember Jon's HUGE cult following. Never gonna happen, man.

[hugodrax]

To elaborate on what 'swift goat pet for truth' said...
The way I saw it - and I may be wrong, I often am - Cliff May was trying to avoid addressing the question of GWB's status as an alleged war criminal by deflecting it back to HST. "I can't defend my guy (Bush) so I'll throw it back onto one of your guys (Truman)". Stewart conceded the point in an effort to stay on topic, rather than allow it to broaden to include other presidents, which it very well could have and was beside the point. Whether or not the A-Bomb attacks on Japan were war crimes is a topic for another discussion. THIS argument was specifically about the actions and policies of one president and one administration - the regime of George Walker Bush. Stewart was right to apologize, he did misspeak in the heat of the moment, but it was just to keep Cliff May from changing the subject.