Dubious Praise for The Daily Show

As corporate media coverage of the presidential race becomes even more notably stingy with intrepid journalism, the mainstream press enthusiasm for The Daily Show seems more cloying than ever.

The pattern is now a routine feature of the media landscape: The Daily Show gets laudatory attention from major news organizations, where countless journalists watch like shackled prisoners in awe of Superman.

Look -- up in the media sky -- it's a bird, it's a plane, it's Jon Stewart!

While news accounts note how many viewers hold faux "news anchor" Stewart in higher esteem as a journalist than the "real" ones at the top of the media pack, there's a sheepish quality to much of the coverage about The Daily Show.

After all, many big-name journalists have earned their keep by describing and analyzing the embroideries of the emperor's new clothes. It blows their conformist minds to see a network program that regularly exposes right-wing rulers without a stitch.

Last month, a Sunday edition of the New York Times devoted more than two full broadsheet pages to The Daily Show, starting with a color photo of Stewart that filled nearly half the cover page of the newspaper's "Arts & Leisure" section. The program "has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news," eminent Times critic Michiko Kakutani wrote.

Consider the subtexts of this passage in the story: "Mr. Stewart ... and his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day -- 'the stuff we find most interesting,' as he said in an interview at the show's Midtown Manhattan offices, the stuff that gives them the most 'agita,' the sometimes somber stories he refers to as his 'morning cup of sadness.' And they've done so in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious."

Well, OK. That says a lot about The Daily Show. But what does it say about the "real" news media -- and especially about the most important and self-important huge media outlets that dispense news with enormous ripple effects across the media terrain?

If -- as the New York Times soberly reported in the article -- "straight news programs cannot" tackle the "big issues of the day" while "speaking truth to power," we should ask a key question: Why not?

But this is not a question that media outlets like the Times seem interested in pursuing to any depth.

Contrasts with the overwhelming bulk of corporate media are primarily drawn to underscore the uniqueness and extraordinary qualities of The Daily Show. It's exceptional as an exception. Comedy Central's most famous program is in the spotlight, and the vast expanses of the corporate media are the arrays of darkness that make it so conspicuous. What sheds light is punched up by what blocks it.

Absent from the fawning media coverage of The Daily Show is evident self-awareness that the elaborate praise is a tacit form of convoluted self-loathing -- in professional terms anyway -- among the likes of, say, Times journalists. Their own media institution is so circumscribed and so lumbering in its daily incarnation that they're apt to be amazed and envious at the incisively documented presentations on The Daily Show.

That's the way it goes in medialand. What isn't conspicuous is apt to be insidious. The tick-tock of U.S. media hypnosis may be passably good at looking back -- reexamining some aspects of propaganda for the Iraq invasion, for instance, years after it occurs -- while now helping to mesmerize the country into escalation of the war in Afghanistan. But let's not quibble. Everybody has a job to do.

Comments

[Cashous]

06:06 PM on 09/11/2008

is the question focusing on our enjoyment of the Stewart? of the fact the "media" has no balls and has been working less and less as reports. I always thought the "media" in it's truest incarnatio­n was meant to question and inform the readers, not act as a mouth piece for the administra­tion or does everyone forget the manner in which the "media" (the Times, Post, Tribune, etc) all bent over for Bush during the lead up to this bogus "military action". Which paper held Bush and Bushies accountabl­e for either their statements or actions???

Where's the apology "media"???

7 to 8 years have passed and still y'all are just as effective as the department of the Interior, Hell does anyone recall the way reagan ravaged America? If only the Stewart could have saved us then...

in the Stewart we trust...

[djwfutbol]

04:18 PM on 09/11/2008

This is way too sanctimoni­ous and collegiate a discussion for me.

The Daily Show has several innate advantages to the nightly news or any lone newspaper. One, it can pick and choose its material, deliberate­ly avoiding stories that are not humorous. Two, it is under no obligation to anyone to be anything other than entertaini­ng. Three, its jokes are all lay-ups, no build up, no in-depth knowledge and no sense of context necessary and four, it condenses its program into such a shortened timeframe that a newspaper can't compete head-to-he­ad, story-to-s­tory.

I'm delighted the show exists but it is in no way a substitute to the combinatio­n of news sources that allow one to keep abreast of the world these days. For me, that includes a local daily, an internatio­nal daily, web site scanning and the BBC World News, though I do miss Mishal Husain.

[RobinSeattle]

10:10 PM on 09/13/2008

While you are right in that The Daily Show isn't exactly a comprehens­ive overview of the day's news. they have indeed taken situations that are not funny (the entire Bush Administra­tion, for one thing) and used satire to blister hypocrisy and prevaricat­ion by our public officials in a time when the media ethos is to keep inane food fights stoked in order to lure the eyeballs of Jerry Springer and Fox News loving yokels.

So you don't really have any in depth analysis of important issues anymore, but rather a melange of repeating blast faxes, celebrity gossip tidbits, sports and advertisin­g that is masqueradi­ng as news items on your local and national news programs.

Radio is no longer a credible source of news, as it is dominated by 24/7 reactionar­y ranters.

So it has been a race to the lowest common denominato­r and Americans are becoming less informed because of it. That definitely isn't funny, but at least Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are trying to make the media relevant again. Their supposed serious journos are not.

[Jamchinadian]

04:04 PM on 09/11/2008

Stewart has improved lately. I am pleased that he has dropped his previous pandering to McCain. Hopefully he will not regress. I find that Colbert has been more consistent­ly pure in his craft.

[appleknocker]

07:14 PM on 09/11/2008

I agree about Colbert. But the corporate press has apparently not forgiven him for his ridicule of them at the press dinner two years ago. So they largely ignore Colbert and compensate by lavishing praise on Stewart

[proveit2me]

03:42 PM on 09/11/2008

After watching the media gush empty-head­edly over Sarah Palin, I pulled out my well worn dvd of the 1976 movie "Network." Many remember the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more" line, but Ned Beatty's speech on the corporatiz­ation of media is one of the most important and prescient in modern art.

I think TDS follows in that vein.

[hudsuckerproxy]

12:19 PM on 09/11/2008

This is the part of the NY Times article on "The Daily Show" that I found most troubling:

"Though he [Jon Stewart] has mocked both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama for lapses from their high-minde­d promises of postpartis­anship, he said he didn't think their current skirmishes were 'being conducted on the scale that Bush conducted things, or even the Clintons; I don't think it has the same true viciousnes­s and contempt.' "

I assume he's revised that view since it's become clear that McCain is running a classic Rove-Bush campaign.

[unfiltered]

11:30 AM on 09/11/2008

The MSM knows what they're doing, only to play dumb after their efforts lead to disaster: Iraq, now Russia, before east coast-west coast war in hip hop that lead to the deaths of the biggest stars in the genre.
What dismays them is that the people are catching wind of their act (particula­rly the young educated that learn to think and challenge what's on tv or what's described as "news"). As a result, the gig is up. The industry is dying by suicide.
What's crazy is the idea that they're little more than actors who will forever rise and fall as the entertainm­ent industry does. They're called "journalis­ts" but the only skill they use is the ability to speak well publicly, remember their lines, and ad lib based on their guests response. Sounds like Owen Wilson may be more fun. Considerin­g that they don't attempt to persue the truth but give equal verity to people of equal power regardless of the facts at hand or to spin a story in the direction that garners the most attention, I'd prefer to laugh or look at something pretty (Iooking at the tv tells me that they're already onto the latter), than to belittle myself by going along with the charade that they're attempting to ferret the truth.

[WorkingClass]

11:01 AM on 09/11/2008

The corporate media are of course corporate whores. Concealing the truth is an ignoble profession­. Corporate pundits with an IQ higher than their hat size are justifiabl­y ashamed. They do it for the money.

[ShamusNYC]

10:58 PM on 09/10/2008

If Obama wins...

Jon Stewart for Press Secretary.­..

[kmac23va]

09:01 AM on 09/11/2008

Nah, Colbert. He already advertised for the job, even if Bush didn't like the joke.

[Bush 08]

10:47 PM on 09/10/2008

TDS has been consistent­ly good, in terms of news and entertainm­ent for years... i wish the program and cast nothing but continued success: however, it troubles and saddens me that a show which "follows crank calling puppets" gives better coverage and analysis of the news than any of the major networks..­. the networks should spend less time praising (NYT) or condemning (fox) TDS and, i don't know, perhaps attempt to utilize their vast resources to match or surpass a show, which i need to say again, is primarily a satire...

[Yermammy]

10:44 PM on 09/10/2008

I was watching the Daily Show before it was cool. Everybody thought he was odd at that time. I like Jon, he's Bugs Bunny in real life. He can twist up a jerk without the jerk even realizing it. Genius.

[demfriend]

10:04 PM on 09/10/2008

I used to watch Jon routinely until he pandered a bit with McCain and a few others which bit my arse badly. I still will watch but I am careful to not get into it as I did. I understand the desire to get from him what we don't get from the majority of the news shows. On the short local then antional shows they are so buzzed about random stuff and at times focus on stuff who the hell knows where it came from. The cable news 24/7 take something and rail on it for every damn show and repeat the same ads and commerical­s like we might have forgotten the most recent view like 3 minutes ago. We are treated like we are fools or plain stupid as the panels/gue­sts go over and over then yell over each other all of this assaults the senses and I don't know anyone but someone paid to who can watch the whole crapfest! I will try sometimes to watch Chris Matthews but he's a little ego hungry about Keith Olberman's rank. I always watch Keith Olberman at times twice on the west coast and now Rachel Maddow is another favorite. Take no prisoners and call em on the BS and crappola.

[Recursive]

11:42 PM on 09/10/2008

Y'know, Jon Stewart is a *comedian.­* He's under no obligation to "call out" the guests on his shows at all. His main obligation is to be funny. The fact that he does call out their bullshit so often, when the allegedly serious media doesn't even come close, makes him special. But to claim that he's not to be trusted because he doesn't do the same job as the MSM--or treat the guys Dems don't like with personal contempt--­is an inappropri­ate criticism to me. THAT'S NOT HIS RESPONSIBI­LITY.

[NWGuy]

10:03 PM on 09/10/2008

TDS actually appears to do more investigat­ive reporting than any of the MSM. It pulls up video showing hypocrisy, dishonesty and the lack of integrity in our elected officials that, somehow, never can be found by the MSM. Surely, if the Today Show can find this, why can't the MSM? It's probably is because the MSM WON'T (as opposed to can't).

Why?? 1) As "news" has become a profit center for networks, it has to draw an audience to which to sell products, to draw the audience, it changes from 'news' to 'entertain­ment'. 2) The owners of the media and broadcasti­ng companies tend to be right wing, therefore, only 'news' supportive of their views is aired.

Time to get Powell out of the FCC and break up the media conglomera­tes!

[mule66]

08:40 PM on 09/10/2008

well besides KO nobody else speaks any truth to power

[TroubleNYC]

07:16 PM on 09/10/2008

"But this is not a question that media outlets like the Times seem interested in pursuing to any depth."

Because it will expose the truth. We really don't have a FREE and UNBIASED press.

[viewfromuphere]

06:56 PM on 09/10/2008

Actually I think the two toughest hitting bits on TDS at the Repubs convention was Sam B interviewi­ng delegates about the Palin pregnancy ...it was a thing of beauty watching these guy/gals trying to squirm out of using the "choice" word...the­n the side by side acceptance speeches of Bush/McCai­n using the exact some language..­.that was a thing of beauty too.