Dmarks: Jon Stewart is a "Rush Limbaugh of the left"?! Not even close. Jon has the guts and the intellect to debate with those who have political viewpoints different from his own. To his credit, he'll even go on Fox "News" and call them out on their turf. To the best of my knowledge, Rush has never done that with a liberal pundit/politician.
Also, Jon will debate with people who are on the same side as him ideologically. Case in point: The respectful back and forth he had with Rachel Maddow when she interviewed him last year.
Jon is also more witty and nuanced in his thinking than Rush could ever hope to be. Comparing Jon and Rush is an insult to the former and a boost to the latter.
Josh: "But if ever he's challenged, he always falls back on the joke."
I went back and watched the interviews Jon did this year with Chris Wallace and Bill O'Reilly. Never once did Jon use humor as a crutch when Chris or Bill asked him a challenging question. Sure, he injected humor into the interviews (as did they); but that's different than what you're suggesting. I did find it interesting that Bill O'Reilly did fall back on a joke when Jon challenged him on comments made by G. Gordon Liddy.
Speaking of comedians/politicos, do you also put Dennis Miller in the "strange breed" category?
I'm glad you enjoyed the clip though. That's too bad the Raiders couldn't handle Tebow and the Broncos the way my team (the Lions) did last week. :-)
Okay. Let me rephrase it. I didn't mean it to sound as if he cowers away in the corner and then pokes a joke if things get too rough.
I'm not giving Stewart grief. In a previous discussion here, I've been clear on where I stand on these types of guys.
What I mean is that a guy like Stewart stays "safe" in his role. He enjoys to touch on serious topics, and the entire world knows that Stewart really wants to be taken seriously. But it's just a pet peeve of mine that these guys switch back and forth and back and forth from "Take my rally seriously!" to "F$&* YOU! haha - It's a joke!"
And if this were a post about Dennis Miller, giving him props for taking it to someone legitimately, I'd say the same - he's another strange-breeder. He's walking the line and it's something I find to be a little disingenuous at times. (I find both to be funny.)
Miller, if there's a difference at all, doesn't seem that interested in becoming a serious part of America's political discourse. His "comedy" has always been political. I don't see him ramping things up.
It seems to me like that's exactly what Stewart wants, though - to be taken seriously and to matter in politics. I remember Stewart's goofball routines from when I was a kid. Not political.
The way I see it, if people want to matter politically while still being a comedian, then take it seriously. Always having the luxury of not having something matter if you step in it is something I don't think we should afford folks.
Malcolm said: "Jon is also more witty and nuanced in his thinking than Rush could ever hope to be."
Conservatives usually take the opposite viewpoint. Whether or not either is an advanced thinker, witty, or nuanced, all depends on what side of the political fence you are on.
Myself, I grew weary of Limbaugh ages ago, and I find the very similar partisan hackery of Stewart tiresome for the exact same reasons I got tired of Limbaugh.
Josh said: "What I mean is that a guy like Stewart stays "safe" in his role"
Josh: Thanks for clarifying. Although Jon has stated he has no interest in being a political player, it's unlikely any of the doubters will ever be convinced of that. If he really wanted to be a political player as you and others have suggested, I think he'd have something along the lines of a talk radio show which gave him a forum to be more of a political activist.
Speaking of which, since Dennis Miller does have a talk radio show in which he talks about politics, current events, etc., I'd argue that he wants to be more of a political player than Stewart. You ever listen to Miller's show? If not, check it out and see if you still believe he doesn't want to be taken seriously as a political pundit.
Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with Stewart, Miller or anyone else whose career blurs the lines of comedy and politics.
Dmarks: Sometimes one's opinion on what constitutes wit/nuanced thinking does depend on one's political viewpoint. However, I'm objective enough to acknowledge that these traits aren't exclusive to my side of the aisle. For example, Dennis Miller can be very funny. Also, Joe Scarborough and David Frum are among the conservative pundits who aren't zombie-like water carriers for the GOP.
The "it's just comedy" line saves so many, but it's only afforded to so few. And in my opinion, a guy like Stewart uses that to his upmost advantage.
Good on him for doing so. But it annoys me. I used to give guys the benefit of the doubt, but then I started to notice that the "it's just comedy" line was only being used to explain away some BS coming from people who classify themselves as comedians. It doesn't work the same for anyone just attempting to be funny.
It probably seems strange to some, but in this type of context, it's like we're dealing with a new hyphenated class with new separate standards, Comedian-Americans! lol
Josh: I think the "it's comedy" line is only afforded to a few because it's a relatively small group of entertainers who are in that category (at least on the level of Stewart, Maher, and Miller). I do see some defenders of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck use the "he's just an entertainer/rodeo clown" pass when Rush or Glenn says something offensive. It's a weak defense because there's no question that these two are political activists trying to effect change on an ideological level.
The thing is, there have been people like Stewart, Miller and Maher around for years. Mark Twain and Will Rogers come to mind. Because we live in a 24 hour cable universe and the age of the Internet, people who walk the fine line of comedy/politics are becoming more prevalent. Who knows, maybe they'll become less annoying to you over time. After all, my stance on the use of pop songs in commercials has softened over the years.
Definitely. Stewart's type isn't new by any stretch. I'm just starting to personally retract my previous approach of not holding these guys to the same standards I would anyone else when it comes to political discourse.
When it's pure comedy and done in that comedic context, I notice it, appreciate it, and laugh if it's funny. But when it crosses into that political context and I feel that "humor" is being used to mask something else, that's when I believe that you cannot have the scapegoat. It's too convenient.
It reminds me a little of this mentally challenged guy I went to school with. (We called him "slow," but that's probably frowned upon these days.)
He was smart enough to know that no one was going to hit him if he acted like an ass, and boy did he ever act like an ass!
That's the best way I can explain what I'm feeling toward these hybrids. It's nothing personal. I'd just rather see them held to the same standard when they bring their serious side to surface.
10 comments:
He's a Rush Limbaugh of the left. Resorting to very one-sided partisanship, with a sense of humor. But he really only plays to the choir.
Dmarks: Jon Stewart is a "Rush Limbaugh of the left"?! Not even close. Jon has the guts and the intellect to debate with those who have political viewpoints different from his own. To his credit, he'll even go on Fox "News" and call them out on their turf. To the best of my knowledge, Rush has never done that with a liberal pundit/politician.
Also, Jon will debate with people who are on the same side as him ideologically. Case in point: The respectful back and forth he had with Rachel Maddow when she interviewed him last year.
Jon is also more witty and nuanced in his thinking than Rush could ever hope to be. Comparing Jon and Rush is an insult to the former and a boost to the latter.
Jon has "guts" to "debate." Maybe.
He's serious when he wants people to think he's serious. But if ever he's challenged, he always falls back on the joke.
Seriously. These comedians-slash-politicos are a strange breed.
But thanks for the LOL. I was depressed after the Raiders got run over. This cheered me right up!
Josh: "But if ever he's challenged, he always falls back on the joke."
I went back and watched the interviews Jon did this year with Chris Wallace and Bill O'Reilly. Never once did Jon use humor as a crutch when Chris or Bill asked him a challenging question. Sure, he injected humor into the interviews (as did they); but that's different than what you're suggesting. I did find it interesting that Bill O'Reilly did fall back on a joke when Jon challenged him on comments made by G. Gordon Liddy.
Speaking of comedians/politicos, do you also put Dennis Miller in the "strange breed" category?
I'm glad you enjoyed the clip though. That's too bad the Raiders couldn't handle Tebow and the Broncos the way my team (the Lions) did last week. :-)
Okay. Let me rephrase it. I didn't mean it to sound as if he cowers away in the corner and then pokes a joke if things get too rough.
I'm not giving Stewart grief. In a previous discussion here, I've been clear on where I stand on these types of guys.
What I mean is that a guy like Stewart stays "safe" in his role. He enjoys to touch on serious topics, and the entire world knows that Stewart really wants to be taken seriously. But it's just a pet peeve of mine that these guys switch back and forth and back and forth from "Take my rally seriously!" to "F$&* YOU! haha - It's a joke!"
And if this were a post about Dennis Miller, giving him props for taking it to someone legitimately, I'd say the same - he's another strange-breeder. He's walking the line and it's something I find to be a little disingenuous at times. (I find both to be funny.)
Miller, if there's a difference at all, doesn't seem that interested in becoming a serious part of America's political discourse. His "comedy" has always been political. I don't see him ramping things up.
It seems to me like that's exactly what Stewart wants, though - to be taken seriously and to matter in politics. I remember Stewart's goofball routines from when I was a kid. Not political.
The way I see it, if people want to matter politically while still being a comedian, then take it seriously. Always having the luxury of not having something matter if you step in it is something I don't think we should afford folks.
Maybe that's just me.
Malcolm said: "Jon is also more witty and nuanced in his thinking than Rush could ever hope to be."
Conservatives usually take the opposite viewpoint. Whether or not either is an advanced thinker, witty, or nuanced, all depends on what side of the political fence you are on.
Myself, I grew weary of Limbaugh ages ago, and I find the very similar partisan hackery of Stewart tiresome for the exact same reasons I got tired of Limbaugh.
Josh said: "What I mean is that a guy like Stewart stays "safe" in his role"
That is exactly what Limbaugh does also.
Josh: Thanks for clarifying. Although Jon has stated he has no interest in being a political player, it's unlikely any of the doubters will ever be convinced of that. If he really wanted to be a political player as you and others have suggested, I think he'd have something along the lines of a talk radio show which gave him a forum to be more of a political activist.
Speaking of which, since Dennis Miller does have a talk radio show in which he talks about politics, current events, etc., I'd argue that he wants to be more of a political player than Stewart. You ever listen to Miller's show? If not, check it out and see if you still believe he doesn't want to be taken seriously as a political pundit.
Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with Stewart, Miller or anyone else whose career blurs the lines of comedy and politics.
Dmarks: Sometimes one's opinion on what constitutes wit/nuanced thinking does depend on one's political viewpoint. However, I'm objective enough to acknowledge that these traits aren't exclusive to my side of the aisle. For example, Dennis Miller can be very funny. Also, Joe Scarborough and David Frum are among the conservative pundits who aren't zombie-like water carriers for the GOP.
Just a peeve of mine. I can't help it.
The "it's just comedy" line saves so many, but it's only afforded to so few. And in my opinion, a guy like Stewart uses that to his upmost advantage.
Good on him for doing so. But it annoys me. I used to give guys the benefit of the doubt, but then I started to notice that the "it's just comedy" line was only being used to explain away some BS coming from people who classify themselves as comedians. It doesn't work the same for anyone just attempting to be funny.
It probably seems strange to some, but in this type of context, it's like we're dealing with a new hyphenated class with new separate standards, Comedian-Americans! lol
Josh: I think the "it's comedy" line is only afforded to a few because it's a relatively small group of entertainers who are in that category (at least on the level of Stewart, Maher, and Miller). I do see some defenders of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck use the "he's just an entertainer/rodeo clown" pass when Rush or Glenn says something offensive. It's a weak defense because there's no question that these two are political activists trying to effect change on an ideological level.
The thing is, there have been people like Stewart, Miller and Maher around for years. Mark Twain and Will Rogers come to mind. Because we live in a 24 hour cable universe and the age of the Internet, people who walk the fine line of comedy/politics are becoming more prevalent. Who knows, maybe they'll become less annoying to you over time. After all, my stance on the use of pop songs in commercials has softened over the years.
Definitely. Stewart's type isn't new by any stretch. I'm just starting to personally retract my previous approach of not holding these guys to the same standards I would anyone else when it comes to political discourse.
When it's pure comedy and done in that comedic context, I notice it, appreciate it, and laugh if it's funny. But when it crosses into that political context and I feel that "humor" is being used to mask something else, that's when I believe that you cannot have the scapegoat. It's too convenient.
It reminds me a little of this mentally challenged guy I went to school with. (We called him "slow," but that's probably frowned upon these days.)
He was smart enough to know that no one was going to hit him if he acted like an ass, and boy did he ever act like an ass!
That's the best way I can explain what I'm feeling toward these hybrids. It's nothing personal. I'd just rather see them held to the same standard when they bring their serious side to surface.
Post a Comment