TNR (online only) WHY CAN'T JON STEWART MAKE AN ARGUMENT?

[Chicago Democrat]

WHY CAN'T JON STEWART MAKE AN ARGUMENT?
Peace Keeper
by T. A. Frank
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 07.26.05
Last October, Tucker Carlson made a good point. (It happens.) Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" had turned up on "Crossfire" to upbraid his hosts for "hurting America" and "doing theater, when you should be doing debate." Carlson, unimpressed, suggested that Stewart, too, was failing the public: "Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show. ... Why not ask him a real question instead of just suck up to him?" Stewart went for evasion: "I didn't realize that ... news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity." When Carlson revisited the point, Stewart took the same tack as before: "You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." Clever line--but still a dodge.

The truth, as Stewart knows, is that "The Daily Show" isn't just comedy. What gives his show heft--what makes it true satire--is that the program brings actual conviction to the stories it covers. Sure, it's willing to digress into sheer silliness, but it just as often finds an ingenious way to make a serious point. The mystery, then, is why the sharpness vanishes as soon as a guest arrives on the set. No one asks that Stewart lay into someone like Reese Witherspoon; but why should John Kerry, a politician dodging real news shows, get such gentle treatment? And it's not just Kerry. With most political guests, Stewart sticks to harmless questions and gentle quips, and he seems unable to pursue an argument. Rarely have such flaws been more pronounced than last night, when Senator Rick Santorum appeared on the set.

(snip)

It should have been great. Santorum, on the show to promote his new book It Takes a Family, isn't shy about sharing his views. He has blamed Boston's political liberalism for the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal; he has compared homosexuality to "man on dog"; and he has equated Democratic attempts to preserve the filibuster to "Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.'" Surely with material like this, Stewart could get a spirited debate going. Yet the only solid part of the interview was the start:

STEWART: felt that we would not agree on a lot of things, so I'd like to start off on some common ground. I will throw the first salvo: I believe sir, that ice cream is a delicious treat. But too much, sir, will spoil the appetite. Your move, sir.

SANTORUM: I uh ... I would agree with that.

(snip)

Here are some other questions Stewart asked: "What do people misunderstand about Rick Santorum?" "What would you like to say to people?" "Are we more corrupt now, do you think, than we were?" And here is Stewart trying to sum up the exchange on homosexuality: "But ultimately you end up getting to this point. Like it's this crazy stopping point, where literally you can't get any further. I don't think that you're a bad dude. I don't think that I'm a bad dude. But I literally can't convince you of the idea that it's doing society a disservice to dismiss the potential of these really ... " Little of this managed to rattle the senator.

Rest
Available ONLINE ONLY to TNR subscribers...here:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050725&s=frank072605

[Chicago Democrat]

1. I often ask myself the same question...

I think the answer is that he wants to be a good host and a guest is a guest. Its not crossfire... its not face the nation... its a comedy show... Everyone watches it and I think it makes the nation more civil in an age that desperately needs it.

Santorum is whoring a book... the guest spot is almost always non controversial unless the guest wants to start the argument. Its wonderful. Santorum behaved himself and was political.

[lvx35]

9. Nah, its more than that.

Jon Stewart religiously kissed O'Reilly's ass when he was on his* one sided show, then ripped a new one in two-sided crossfire...Now I'm not blaming him, they say the one John Steward REALLY hated, long before Plamegate, was Robert Novak...Whe worked on crossfire, and he took it out on the other hosts. I don't blame him for that so much. But its true you don't see him argue in a lot of places you wish he would, I think it would be fun, and probably funny, to really watch Jon Stewart argue O'Reilly.

* O'Reilly's show

[charmsicle]

11. How do you argue with O'Reilly?

To a certain extent, it's just pointless. if I had my druthers, I would rather he didn't go on the show at all, rather than have to be civil. Not only that, he knows all O'Reilly is going to do is turn off his mike if he gets out of line. Stewart for the most part isn't a "get out of line" type of guy.

Crossfire exclueded, of course. But wasn't Stewart on the show specifically to talk about political discourse? Plus, Tucker was such a condescending dick-wad. "Be funny, John! Aren't you a comedian? Tell us jokes." F-you, bowtie boy.

[lvx35]

12. Ah Jon could have made some fun of O'Reilly if he wanted to.

He's got it in him...And yeah, Tucker was a dick, but the truth be told, I kinda liked the democratic commentators, specifically points made by the ragin' Cajun guy, and Jon brought the whole show down, literally...Which is a shame, because it was one of the few shows that actually had political discourse rather than one-sided rhetoric.

edit: But then again, that's what they get for having Novak on.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi charmsicle!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[question everything]

19. I wonder about that, too

Just watched the rebroadcast of the Santorum show

But it was also with Woodward and Bernstein last week and Fareed Zakaria (sp?)

One problem is that he has only 8 minutes, or so, so it is hard for more than one person to say something to the point.

But Stewart simply is not a good interviewer. He cannot focus his question but mumbles around searching for words and, worse, he cuts his guests in mid sentence. I know that his guests are better ready. They do know that they have only a few minutes to make a point so they are concise. It is Stewart who is all around.

He should watch his tapes real carefully and ask himself, or honest critics whether anything came out of it. One has to really try hard to figure out what he is getting into.

And I don't think that he invites people just to tear them, or to listen to himself. That comment about the ice cream was OK, was meant to put Santorum at ease since they both knew the audience would be hostile.

But he really should have sharp question and then let his guest speak. I was really annoyed when he did not let Carl Bernstein finish his sentence.

[jpgray]

2. Evidence that this person rarely if ever watches the show

Guests like Santorum, Kerry, Dean or Powell are the exceptions. The rule are pop culture guests and ideologue authors / media folks. Stewart handles the latter brilliantly, as you can see with Bernie Goldberg or Bob Woodward and their interviews on the show. Stewart may not be wholly comfortable with high-powered guests, but TNR is a fucking waste of space if it thinks he asked nothing of value and made no argument.

Stewart: "But if the sixties were a more religious and less vulgar time and we had abominations like segregation, doesn't that indicate that being more religious and less vulgar doesn't necessarily prevent nasty behavior?"

Santorum: "Blarg, bum, fum, I like families and values."

Give us a break.

[gbwarming]

8. Exactly. "Blarg, bum, fum" was revealed as Santorum's depth of thought

He had nothin'except the talking points. CNN never challenges people the way Jon does, even when they're screaming.

[charmsicle]

10. I agree

The interesting thing to me is that Santorum was going on and on about family values, and how marriage was so important, and Stewart at one point said something to the fact that HE was raised by a single mother, and that basically, marriage isn't always an option, and kids raised by single parents aren't always screwed. Stewart also got in some good points about how homosexuality isn't a moral issue, and got Santorum to say that just because you're gay doesn't mean that you're a bad person. And then he farthed around about how society requires families (which is just stupid - lots of definitiions for "family", Rick) Look, everyone knows what Santorum is about. He says "family values" people know already know that means, "Single mothers and homosexuals are EVIL." IMHO, I thought that letting the man talk showed everyone what type of person he was, and what his book was about.

I thought it was interesting that John stopped the interview because he really couldn't go any further, because neither of them would be able to convince the other that they were right. And I think he was correct.

[Lisa]

14. welcome to DU, charmsicle!

I saw the show too, and I agree that Stewart got in some important points just by appearing more reasonable than Santorum. (Given that the GOP has probably spent a fortune on consultants to make their guys look reasonable and credible, this is not a small thing!) With Stewart being calm but relentless ("I was raised by a single parent." "Where were you guys when the divorce laws were liberalized?") -- I think Santorum was getting flustered, to the point where he actually patted Stewart's arm in a "just kidding" gesture, which just made himself look foolish.

[knowbody0]

3. jon plants seeds of thought

he reminds us to trust no one and question everything. he makes us laugh and that is the best medicine in these horrific times.

[Pawel K]

4. The Daily Show Was Never Meant to have heated debates

Stewert is easy on Democrats as he is easy on Republicans; it has always been that way. His point about being on CNN is a very good point; if you want political hackery watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX "NEWS", CNBC; if you don't know much about politics and don't want a bunch of debate but instead want to watch a funny news show you watch The Daily Show. I think the way Stewert points out how idiotic politicians are is enough; especially since most idiotic behavior comes from the right and he never gives them a pass in that part of the show.

[dave29]

5. because people are no longer used to civil discourse

thanks to folks like turdblossom ;)

[Geoff R. Casavant]

6. It's not a good forum for making an argument

And that's not his job. His job is to make satrical points about the news each day, and he does it well.

Guests only get 8-10 minutes tops, hardly enough time to delve into any issue of substance. Stewart is great at introducing new products to the marketplace of ideas, which can only help. Then, we can read the books if we wish, and make up our own minds. The point is, every guest on DS can say his or her piece without being shouted down or ridiculed (at least not while they are there).

Has anyone actually read the book? I'd be willing to bet there's at least one nugget in it we would actually agree with, but we have to dig to find it. Even Dan Quayle ignited the whole Murphy Brown controversy by making a valid point about the importance of fathers in child development.

[Mass]

7. Stewart is not a reporter, give him a break.

Why doesn't this guy ask the same question from these people from the Sunday Shows, for example.

Stewart makes a parody show. This is by large the most interesting part of the show. The interview are not the important part. That people confuse that with a newshow shows the problem with the newsmedia, not with Stewart.

[startingnow]

13. I have see Jon

I have seen Stewart rip into a guy. A year or so back, a guy came on who wrote a book about Iraq, and Jon came right out and said something along the line of, "When I see stuff like this, I can't help but think it's full of bullshit."

[Chicago Democrat]

15. Maybe he's a bit in awe of Senators

with their secret service etc...

[poetsdream]

18. I kind of remember that too

I think the guy was trying to push some BS theory about intelligence about the war. (show was on I think sometime before the conventions last year).

Jon pretty much told him that the book was a piece of pure political hackery and not a book based on any semblance of research or facts. And as I recall, the expression on Jon's face showed that he knew the guy was full of SH** and although he wasn't mean to the guy, it was clear that he was offended by the sheer purely political nature of the book.

[Cocoa]

16. I never stick around for the guests

his interviews are nowhere near as good as his opening newscast.

[K-W]

17. ITS A COMEDY SHOW nt

[ixion]

23. indeed. that was my thought as well.

I think it's a bit desperate to ask a 'fake' news show to try and be more serious.


Shouldn't we be asking 'real' news stations the same thing? :shrug:

[pacifictiger]

20. I think Jon

is the only person doing any kind of news that actually tries to have some sort of reasonable and civil discourse with his guest, no matter what their political leanings. That is itself is really refreshing and too rare in today's world of media manipulations.

[Bark Bark Bark]

21. The Next Day, Jon Acknowledges It

I'm watching TDS right now, and Jon just said (paraphrasing from memory):

"America is abuzz about the interview I had last night with Santorum; some think it sucked--and others, well, thought it SUCKED. But tonight...Diane Lane is going DOWN!!"

EDIT: Wow! Americablog, who nailed Jon to the wall yesterday--for the very same reasons as New Republic Online--has this up already:

Yesterday, Americablog gave Stewart grief for his weak interview with Sen. Rick Santorum. When you have a racist hate-mongering radical on your show, it's important to show them for who they are. That doesn't mean attacking or screaming at them. But Stewart is funny and quick-witted; he should have been able to illustrate how dumb and hateful Santorum is with a few well-placed quips. If you're gonna showcase a bigot, at least TRY to challenge their narrow thinking. Apparently, we weren't the only ones criticizing him.

Stewart opened Tuesday's show by saying everyone was talking about the Santorum interview, lots of controversy, blah blah blah with people discussing the "general suckiness" of it. Others, he said, thought it "suuUUUUUCKED!" Wednesday's guest was actress Diane Lane; Stewart promised to make amends by bringing her down. So Stewart deftly and charmingly acknowledged the criticism. Though he didn't necessarily say he agreed with it -- Stewart might well argue it's not his job to "get" guests. But when you're giving national exposure to a fringe bigot, it's kind of important.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/americablog-hearts-jon-stewart.html

[AtomicKitten]

22. Jon Stewart Picks The Fights He Chooses

It's easier to pick a fight with someone like Bernard Golberg, the obvious toad that he is, and Stewart laid into him good. Santorum is a demented choir boy. Maybe Stewart didn't see the challenge he did with Goldberg.

[WhiteTara]

25. I thought he let Santorum frame the debate

I mean, the question that I would like to have seen him ask was, "if you think homosexuality is such a sin, why do you have a gay assistant?" Wouldn't that have provoked an interesting answer?
:shrug:

[Skittles]

26. STEWART IS AN AN ENTERTAINMENT SHOW FOR CHRISSAKES

WTF TUCKER? Don't blame COMEDIANS because PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T DO THEIR JOBS

[thebigidea]

27. cute that the New Republic feels it can criticize the Daily Show

fuck those neocon/neoliberals and the Tom Friedman moustache they rode in on.

[atre]

28. So, basically, TNR expects TDS to be Crossfire?

Or am I missing something?

Jon Stewart treats his guests with respect. He has serious dialogues in which he actually attempts to make important points, not debating quips.