London Calling: Enough Jon Stewart/John McCain Comments Already -- An Explanation

I'm writing a post script on Jon Stewart's ongoing relationship with Senator John McCain because the first piece I wrote provoked such a strong reaction.

I've written five pieces for the Huffington Post and the most comments any of them had drawn was just over one hundred. This last article has attracted 285 comments and counting.

Apparently, I've struck a nerve.

First, let me deal with those (relatively few) of you who called what I wrote an "attack piece".

Remember how I started the article?

Where I said "I'm a fan of Jon Stewart... The Daily Show is a welcome breath of tart air...(that) struck a collective chord amongst Americans... Stewart's contribution to the Iraq debate...desperately needed to be heard...should not be underestimated...his skill as an interviewer is something to behold... at times, it is pure genius...(Stewart) provided a public service when he went on Crossfire...blowing that broadcast and Tucker Carlson right off CNN's airwaves."

And, yes, all that positive stuff was followed by a "but", but it was there.

Many of the comments you posted agreed with my argument, so I'm not the only one who thinks John McCain has been on the show far too often (eleven times, more than any other guest).

And many of you were vitriolic about McCain, far worse than what I wrote about him, but that's typical of the kind of language in the space.

Overall, three main themes emerged from your arguments.

1/ Relax - it's a comedy show!

2/ You're wrong - Stewart doesn't always give McCain a free pass, sometimes he can be tough on him.

3/ And there was the issue of whether it is appropriate that The Daily Show continues to feature interviews with war supporters, be they politicians like John McCain, or hawkish pundits, like Bill Kristol.

Dealing with them in reverse order:

Despite what many of you wrongly inferred, I have no quarrel with Stewart interviewing people of that ilk on his show. Let me refer you back to the piece:

"I get that Stewart likes to have people on his program who see things differently to the way he does. He is already broadcasting to the converted; he shouldn't always be interviewing them. He understands, too, that the conflict of ideas and ideologies makes for good TV."

Are we clear on that? As for those of you who believe there is no place for the pro-war argument on The Daily Show, I happen to disagree. But let's leave it there.

On the second point; that Stewart has been tough on McCain in the past, so it's OK to lob some softballs his way now and again.

I am aware of previous encounters that have been more confrontational than the happy-talk interview from the campaign bus, which is why I have never complained about the relationship before.

This is how I see it: much of journalism (and, yes, I consider what Stewart does to be a form of journalism, more on that later) comes down to context. And the problem I had with the happy-talk, campaign bus interview was the context.

It took place immediately after the Petraeus Show in Washington, in which John McCain played a shameful, supporting role.

He went on Meet The Press and mischaracterized (or lied about) what the general said. He mischaracterized (or lied about) what others had said about the general's testimony. Senator McCain even misquoted (or lied about) what he himself had said to the general in the Senate committee.

This was a candidate for president, lying repeatedly in order to prolong an illegal war that has already claimed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocent lives.

Then he went on the road and said that MoveOn should be thrown out of the country for running that ad in the New York Times.

That was the context in which Jon Stewart and John McCain did their little happy-talk number from the bus.

And that was my point: this was no time to play softball with a warmonger. The stakes are just too high.

Finally, on the "Relax - it's a comedy show!" argument.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider The Daily Show to be just a comedy show. And not because I lack a sense of humor.

I don't doubt that back when Jon Stewart took the job, a comedy show was what he had in mind.

But, as the song says, a lot of things changed after 9/11. The first time Stewart went on the air after the attacks, he wasn't at all funny. He was deadly serious and emotional, because it was no time to be cracking jokes.

And, in the years since, we've been tuning in to The Daily Show in huge numbers, and not just for laughs.

Political satire is only funny when it contains an element of truth. Truth is what mainstream US media have been lacking, post 9/11. And truth, couched in humor, was what Jon Stewart had to offer.

We watch The Daily Show because we have come to rely on Stewart to ask the kinds of questions that mainstream media have failed to ask, because they've been afraid of the political or commercial repercussions.

Does anyone out there think that, if this was just a comedy show, Fox News would have felt the need to respond to it, with that awful Half Hour News Hour (R.I.P.)?

That was a strategic, political response from Fox, in order to blunt the impact that Jon Stewart was having in the debate on the war, particular among young Americans.

In a way, I feel sorry for the guy. Jon Stewart is a comic, who through circumstance, and a rare combination of talent, insight, conscience and courage has become an important voice at a time when too many Americans have remained silent.

There are probably occasions when he scratches his head and wonders how it happened; that a guy who plays it for laughs has come to be relied upon by so many people.

But he's plenty smart enough to understand why we hold him to the standards he has set for himself.

It comes with the territory.

Yes, Jon Stewart is an accidental journalist. But he is one of the biggest dogs we have in this fight. And we need him to be on his game.

Even, in fact, especially, when he's got John McCain on the show.

Comments

[boltaflex]

Does The Daily Show's booking department keep calling McCain back?
Or, is it McCain's agent who routinely calls on behalf of his client?
Either way, it's good ratings and coverage for both, isn't it?

[seatech1]

I disagree that Jon Stewart should have the responsibility of a journalist. You are putting that on him, and most (if not all) of the rest of us are not. He continually stresses that he and his show are comedy/satire, and should not be taken seriously. Just because he takes a jab at someone now and then does not move him over under the category of journalist.
If you put him there, then he no longer has the right to be a comedian, and you will have to judge him differently for everything he says.
If you want to take him and the show more seriously than they intend it, then put that responsibility on you.

[alanfg]

Journalist­/schmourna­list...Ste­wart is a citizen. He has generally done his fair share of providing thoughtful, humorous takes on the American scene and while he generally goes for the laugh, it is rarely the cheap or easy laugh. He has respect for the satire he makes, and the audience he plays to, and is careful to provide light on the the subjects of his playful derision.
This is what sets him apart from the anything-f­or-a-laugh schtickmeisters like Leno and Letterman.
Where the confusion occurs is in the fact that Stewart is asking the questions that journalists should be asking, and sadly (except for a few cases, mostly to be found in the blogosphere) haven't got either the guts or the smarts to do so.

[avb34]

For years respondents to polls have declared that television is their preferred source of news and that the Daily Show is their preferred source of television news. Jon Stewart has persisted as host of the DS during all these years without asking his audience to consider his program only as comedy. He knows what he is doing, and he ought to take responsibility for doing it. It is also true that seven minutes of every show are given over to an interview, usually of someone who is flogging a book. Jon takes on this nightly burden without demur. He could let an experienced interviewer do it for him, but he would sacrifice the humor. So he claims to have read the book, and he tries to keep it funny. The fact that he so often misses the salient points that the interviewee wants to make is irritating to those who want the interview to be better than it is, and they are amply represented on this and other blogs. Other viewers, perhaps unfamiliar with what a Steve Allen could do in this position, imagine that Stewart is a great interviewer. He is not; he is merely funny most of the time, thanks to a large an imaginative staff of writers. And when he is not funny, as he was not on the Oscar program of two years ago, he confesses to being a loser. . .also not the whole truth.

[transendentilist]

There are millions that would disagree. I have seen Stewart interview people from every walk of life. From past presidents, to musicians, actors, activists...etc. Stewart is a great interviewer, but has some serious time restraints. I remember Steve Allen, and remember him fondly. Anybody that had Jack Kerouac on, reading from On the Road, during a time when beats were the current subjects of mockery, gets my attention.

[transendentilist]

He no longer has a right to be a comedian? And you have been making the rules for how long now?

[mhovey]

I actually agree with what you are saying. Jon Stewart is a very strong voice on the liberal side. He is articulate and intelligent and I find him refreshing. I have also seen him, on more than one occasion; get almost angry talking to someone of the right. But he doesn’t seem to get that way with McCain. But I do have to point out that Jon Stewart was not the original host of the Daily Show, Craig Kilborn hosted it for two seasons before Jon Stewart.

[Onkelbob]

Much ado about nothing? The people that watch Jon Stewart already know the "truth." the audience that watches the show is not deprived when Jon treats neo-con shills with perceived deference. No amount of ribbing or jabs are going to change the minds of those that support the misadventures of this administration. No amount of strokes and softballs are going to convince the audience of the Daily Show that McCain has a shred of honor left. We know.
BTW - if you haven't noticed, when you allow those bozo's to talk enough, they usually hang themselves.

[paige]

Ok, honestly, I want the truth. I've watched The Daily Show many times and I keep asking myself is this show ONE of the reasons the people are silent? If people laugh about a terrible situation then they are more prone to let it go. So my question is, is Jon Stewart & Colbert really helping all that much and shouldn't they get just a tad bit more serious?
I'll leave it at that.

[WheelofVoter]

This is a very interesting point. I think this resolute apathy and non-action is due to the vast entertainment distractions. Internet pornography, video games, 100s of cable channels. In the sixties, people did not have these distractions. They did not turn on their laptops first thing in the morning. Colbert pointed out that we are not going to blog ourselves out of this corrupt war. Everyone is waiting for the next election to solve fair and square. Everyone hates protesters, right? Thankfully, Stewart and Colbert voice reason unlike these other entertainment options. They make it a bit more painful for the Exxon administration. Otherwise, they get a complete free pass. Now let's blog some more about this.

[cindyw]

That's an interesting theory, but I doubt it. I'm a big fan of Stewart and Colbert, and laughing with them doesn't assuage my anger about this administration even a little bit. If I'm looking for a more serious slant on the news, there are other places I can go.

[research]

Without the Daily show, Colbert and Oberman I would just give up and assume no one thinks the way I do.

On the question of action, we did get the dem elected, too bad so many of the dems are spineless .

[transendentilist]

It's a COMEDY SHOW!!To keep from going insane in an insane situation, is what laughter does. Laughing and crying are the same release, so I prefer to laugh, and apparently there are millions like me.

[wldnswmmr]

Before he went nuts, John McCain was a fun interview, and lots of talk show hosts, of all political stripes liked having him on their shows. He was fun, spontaneous and sometimes (as with Abu Ghraib) he was surprisingly progressive. At some point, for reasons not completely clear but maybe relating to an unsatisfied lust to be President at last, McCain lost it. He's become a kind of parody of a sincere politician. I think Jon Stewart, like a lot of people in the TV game, remember that old McCain persona and just simply can't believe how fundamentally McCain has mutated into a bellicose, anti-progressive demagogue. I wonder, of those 11 appearances on the Daily Show, how many are before and how many after this obvious mental/emotional breakdown McCain has suffered.

[dadw5boys]

Strange isn't it that to get a realistic view of Politics in the U.S. we must turn to the Comdey Channel?

[desthmoneses]

its not strange, America has become one big joke.