Exactly what was wrong with the Jon Stewart interview?

[DutchLiberal]

I have barely been posting here in the last two years, but I felt I had to chime in and share my thoughts on Jon Stewart's interview with Rachel Maddow. Because I simply don't understand some of the criticism that's being hurled at him the past couple of days on Democratic Underground.

It seems the main offense Stewart supposedly has committed, is falsely equating the 'liberal' media (or the liberal elements in the corporate media) to the right-wing, conservative (batshit) media. I also believe this was Maddow's criticism. However, as Stewart tried to point out numerous times during the interview, that was not his intention. People may have perceived it that way, but he has no control over that perception. Leftists and liberals have been mad, because it seemed like Stewart equated conspiracy theories about Obama ("the socialist muslim from Kenya") with legitimate anger from the left toward the Bush cabal (e.g. Code Pink). Stewart said to Maddow that he wasn't going at substance, but at tone.

In other words, he wasn't criticizing the arguments of the anti-Bush crowd, but rather the tone they choose, just like he went after the tone the Tea Party chooses. He pointed out that Maddow criticized him for making fun of groups like Code Pink, yet Maddow did no different with the town hall protesters. Maddow had a good point when she argued those people were being used by big corporations and that's why she called them out. Notice Stewart didn't disagree with that, but he just stated that doesn't make those people's passions any less genuine. Misinformed, yes; willfully ignorant, yes. Stewart's point was he made fun of both sides because of the tone they take --and how he is in a different position to do that than Maddow, because he's a comedian and she and her colleagues are in the news business.

Important detail is that Stewart said to Maddow: "you know we, on the show, have a special place in our hearts for Fox". Meaning that he doesn't really think Fox and MSNBC are equals, and that Fox is a category all by it itself. At one point during the interview, he said to Maddow that she was defending herself about something he didn't accuse her of. He even complimented her and, in a way, Keith Olbermann too, by pointing out how he had been the pioneer for liberal voices on television. So this is why I don't get some poster's comment that Stewart has been working against liberal voices on television, going even as far to cite 'Crossfire' as a show for liberals. Stewart's little crusade is directed against bad media, and I thought most on DU agreed that constitutes almost all mainstream media.

The second big sin Stewart apparently committed, was saying he thinks Bush really believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that Bush was a really bad president, but that he wasn't an evil man. Because of this, some on Democratic Underground have declared him the enemy, or said he has lost his credibility. But this is not a new point of view. Many observers, columnists and opinion makers over the years have already posited the view that Bush was nothing more than the puppet of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld --just like Reagan was the puppet of George H.W. Bush. This is also the stance Stewart has taken through the 8 years of the Bush administration. On 'The Daily Show' he always presented George Bush as a bungling, inept figure, with Dick Cheney as the Dark Vader-like evil force behind him. So Stewart's stance during the Maddow interview is nothing new. Why this suddenly offend so many on DU is incomprehensible to me. A lot of people have been angry that Stewart objected to calling Bush a 'war criminal'. But Stewart never denied Bush is technically a war criminal. The point he was trying to make, is that calling him a war criminal shuts down every discussion.

Now you don't have to agree with that, but why would you call Stewart a traitor or anything like that? I think it's ironic that the people on DU who have been viciously attacking Stewart are displaying the exact kind of behavior Stewart claims to fight. People said Stewart didn't "get" Maddow's points. I believe those people only saw what they wanted to see. They had already picked 'a side' before the interview began --maybe they've been conditioned to do this by watching too much of the mainstream media. Stewart did "get" Maddow's points, he simply didn't agree with all of them, or he thought he had been misunderstood. I thought it was an excellent interview, and a perfect example of how mainstream tv should be. Two people disagreeing, yes, but settling their differences in a polite discussion --and actually listening to each other, instead of the mindless yelling we see on cable tv all the time.

So, to conclude, I think a lot of people on DU have been too quick to judge Stewart and didn't listen and watch properly. Of course, a lot of people may not agree with him on all points and that's fine. Criticize him all you want. But I don't understand why people say they "can no longer respect" him. Maybe these people can explain that here?

[Posteritatis]

1. A lot of people here tend to enjoy having a zero-strike policy for people

They'll issue all sorts of justifications, of course, and you'll probably see a lot of them in this thread, but we seem to like autophagy enough to devour our own at the slightest provocation, or even perceived provocation. Add to that an incredibly polarized (to be fair, not entirely without reason!) community, and ... yeah.

[OHdem10]

2. He had the flu and came sick. We were still treated to a mature

discussion and exchange of ideas.

[tularetom]

3. It isn't a matter of trashing him or disrespecting him

I just plain did not understand what the fuck the man was saying. He was all over the map. He must have presented ten different rationales for his defense of the "both sides do it" theme and not one of them made sense.

And his disorganized responses often made it seem like he was trying too hard to sell something he maybe didn't really believe, namely that "both sides do it". I just did not know what to make of that whole interview.

I don't think he is evil, a sellout, or a right wing tool. But I'm not sure what to make of him after this interview. He might actually be as vacuous as he appeared or he may have been off his game. He did say he had been ill, maybe he was on medication.

You seem to be able to read a lot of intent into his rambling, disorganized comments. I'm glad you could, unfortunately I'm not as perceptive. But the interview left me scratching my head.

Disclaimer: I only watched the first half of the show. It was so confusing I turned it off.

[DutchLiberal]

18. I think Stewart made very coherent, reasonable points...

But I've already written about that extensively in my opening post. I just don't get that some people would find it disorganized. It certainly was a very nuanced, thoughtful story Stewart tried to put over, but I never got the impression it was confusing. What I found refreshing, is that the guest could finish his thoughts before the interviewer interrupted him to ask the next question. You don't often see that on cable tv.

Again, I don't think he said "both sides do it", or "both sides are equal" (like others said he did). He explained that was the perception a lot of people got, but that he can't control that perception. He didn't try to equate the crazies on the left, who are the fringe, with the crazies on the right, who are now the mainstream.

Maybe Stewart's tired of being called the 'liberal' host of the Daily Show? Who knows? He obviously goes after both Republicans and Democrats. But people (especially on the right) want to put a label on him. But defending one side of the political spectrum is not what he or his show is about, and I think that's what he meant to say. That, and the fact that he's not a political pundit, despite Maddow repeatedly claiming he is seen like that by many people. But he rejects that epithet, because he thinks that would mean he could no longer be the satirist he is now.

[Political_Junkie]

4. I thought it was a good interview.

I disagreed with some of his points, but still have respect for the man.

[malaise]

16. +1,000 n/t

[barbtries]

5. i so agree with you.

i have been dismayed by so many hating on him because he expressed beliefs that don't coincide with theirs. i loved the rally to restore sanity, i am a huge fan of jon stewart, and i'm not tossing that because he said something i disagreed with.

i've also discovered that i'm a fringe person, because i believe 911 was an inside job. i think the bushies should be brought up on charges. fox news is one of the worst things that ever happened to this country. i'm a diehard left-leaning liberal progressive democrat.

it's like a purity test. i'll flunk and most of us would on some point or the other. for many people jon stewart flunked their purity test. they wanted the rally to represent the left and instead it represented sanity. exactly what it was sold as i might add.

this is a picture i took at the rally.


i loved that - they had a tiny tiny baby in a stroller. most of us do love some conservatives. i love my older brother and my sister even though their politics are wrong in my view. don't most people have a loved one who's politics don't match theirs? the point is we are all here on this planet together and it is incumbent upon all of us to try and get along. i appreciate that the right with their fox news, their lies, their screaming, don't play fair. but: 200,000 people (at least!) showed up at that rally!

i don't know. sorry to ramble. i posted this yesterday on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9544946

[DutchLiberal]

19. That's a beautiful picture! Thanks for sharing. And...

Yes, I have disagreed with Stewart, too, and have even grumbled at some of his jokes. I also shook my head in disbelief at some comments made by Keith Olbermann, and I got mad a few times at Bill Maher. Most of the times it was them scorning the media all the time on the one hand, but on the other hand still buying the media's kool-aid on president Chávez of Venezuela (though Maher has learned since he saw Oliver Stone's documentary 'South of the Border'), and with Maher it was also his ridiculous points of view on Israel.

But do I throw them under the buss? No! Sure, I may have sworn never to watch them again, but then the next day or week, there I am watching them again and applauding them. Because I might have missed so much had I really stopped watching. I learn from their shows, I change my points of view sometimes, and that's why I like them.

Now I don't agree with you that 9/11 was an inside job. I believe it was true that the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks and let them happen anyway (which Maher calls 'batshit'), but I don't see how they could have actively participated in it. But that doesn't mean I have to hate you now, because we disagree.

[tavalon]

27. There has always been a black and white aspect to Free Republic that we laughed at

Nowadays, I see a lot of that same black and white thinking here. It's creepy, frankly.

[watstearns]

22. My problem with Stewart

Is that the strident tone of emergency is appropriate, because we are in an emergency, and because I feel that he is recommending complacency. That said, I think he has a valid point that liberals and conservatives have more in common than the polarized national discourse would have us believe, and particularly Fox News is driving wedges into our differences to make us feel and seem further apart than we are, all to the effect of obscuring the role of the parasitic elite in tearing our economy and the constitution apart.

I have another bone with Stewart about Bush. Bush lied specifically to enter the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has never had credible evidence of 9/11 complicity against Usama bin Laden, there are no 9/11 charges on his FBI webpage. Because of Bush's lies, over 1 million Iraqis and Afghans have been killed. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69491-9/fulltext That is not war crime by technicality!

To put it succinctly, SANITY W/O JUSTICE = COMPLACENCY, and I think Stewart has seriously muddled the national discourse.

[chimpymustgo]

34. Good points, all. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[PerpetuallyDazed]

36. I think we're all concerned with the perceived image Stewart's projecting

and how that's going to reflect badly on our own political causes. Maybe that's important, but part of me thinks some things are out of our control, and maybe we're undermining the intelligence of America... and then I think about this startling statistic I heard a few years ago: folks are more likely to tell you the 3 American Idol judges than to recall the 3 branches of government. :(

[DutchLiberal]

37. I believe you have just made the best case *in favor* of Stewart...

You said: "That said, I think he has a valid point that liberals and conservatives have more in common than the polarized national discourse would have us believe, and particularly Fox News is driving wedges into our differences to make us feel and seem further apart than we are, all to the effect of obscuring the role of the parasitic elite in tearing our economy and the constitution apart."

I think that's the most important issue in politics right now. Politicians try to keep us fighting among ourselves, Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, so they can run off with all the money without anybody paying attention. George Carlin once said it almost literally like that years and years ago. You contribute this point to Stewart, too. Then I think Stewart should be complimented for putting this point forward. Because the problem in Washington is really that the Dems and Reps are too much alike. You wouldn't know it from the shouting matches on tv, but they're both right-wing corporatist parties. The Reps are 'just' crazy and ultra-religious in addition to that. But they both don't have the interest of the working and middle class at heart. Pointing that out is the most important thing one can do.

I don't think Stewart ever let Bush and Cheney off the hook when it comes to their disastrous policies, especially the wars. I've watched him for 8 years and I think you cannot make that claim.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

31. I'm also a part of the fringe!

I'm happily in agreement with this post. Love the pic :hi:

[stray cat]

6. Jon doesn't parrot some people on DU

[Zoeisright]

7. I don't respect him anymore because he's promoting the big lie.

Saying that the liars on Fux news and commentators on MSNBC is disingenuous at best and a dangerous equivocation at worst. The people screaming the lies and the people shouting them down with the truth are NOT the same thing. AT ALL. Fux screams lies. Olbermann, Maddow, and O'Donnell shout them down with the truth. Stewart said they are the same and both are dangerous.

That's the problem.

[DutchLiberal]

20. Your response shows you haven't read my post at all...

I know the title of my thread had the form of a question, but that doesn't mean you don't have to read the post before answering. I specifically addressed your point and explained why I don't think it's true. I'll repeat it here for you:

It seems the main offense Stewart supposedly has committed, is falsely equating the 'liberal' media (or the liberal elements in the corporate media) to the right-wing, conservative (batshit) media. I also believe this was Maddow's criticism. However, as Stewart tried to point out numerous times during the interview, that was not his intention. People may have perceived it that way, but he has no control over that perception. Leftists and liberals have been mad, because it seemed like Stewart equated conspiracy theories about Obama ("the socialist muslim from Kenya") with legitimate anger from the left toward the Bush cabal (e.g. Code Pink). Stewart said to Maddow that he wasn't going at substance, but at tone. <...>

Important detail is that Stewart said to Maddow: "you know we, on the show, have a special place in our hearts for Fox". Meaning that he doesn't really think Fox and MSNBC are equals, and that Fox is a category all by it itself. At one point during the interview, he said to Maddow that she was defending herself about something he didn't accuse her of. He even complimented her and, in a way, Keith Olbermann too, by pointing out how he had been the pioneer for liberal voices on television. So this is why I don't get some poster's comment that Stewart has been working against liberal voices on television, going even as far to cite 'Crossfire' as a show for liberals. Stewart's little crusade is directed against bad media, and I thought most on DU agreed that constitutes almost all mainstream media.

[tavalon]

28. Yeah, short attention span people

[Poboy]

8. Answer is here-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9541449

[PerpetuallyDazed]

33. I read it

and agree with all the points EXCEPT for casting JS as the impetus/reason for making those points. His reputation does not stand up to the characterization of "not getting it."

That's not my perspective after attending the rally and watching the interviews.

[slipslidingaway]

9. knr - I heard the interview in the same way, also he pointed out how the media ...

perpetuates the Dem/Repub divide instead of discussing the real issues. And then we should ask the question who benefits by keeping the left/right divide alive?

[mzmolly]

10. I enjoyed parts of the interview and portions of what he had to say.

But I disagreed with some of what he suggested and I made that known. This does not mean I think he's a traitor. It just means I don't agree with his every, nuanced position.

:hi:

[iris27]

11. Because his defense boils down to the "tone" argument - the favorite tactic of concern trolls.

It's saying "I'm going to ignore the specifics of your argument - even if I know them to be factually true - because I don't like the WAY you're saying it." (When actually the "way" it's being said is usually perfectly reasonable.) It's a way to dismiss arguments of substance.

And honestly, do liberals really need to be told to be MORE diffident and accommodating to those who would deny our basic humanity? Our rights to our own bodies? Our right to live and love how we choose? I think we're already a little TOO good at that.

The right's "crazies" KILL people (Tiller, Shepard, James Byrd). The left's "crazies" get vocally and publicly pissed about this. And Jon Stewart tells us all to "shush" and play nicely.

Fuck that.

[CrawlingChaos]

12. +1 well said (n/t)

[slipslidingaway]

13. I watched a different interview, one of the main points is that several ...

cable channels, including MSNBC, spend too much time trying to take down "the other side" instead of focusing on the issue itself.

[iris27]

14. But see, I don't think that's a fair assessment for him to make either.

When Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision came out, no one in the media spent as much time in on-air analysis of that ruling as Rachel did. How is that focusing on "the other side" more than "the issue itself"?

And I'm not sure what different interview you watched. The one I saw had him saying:

"You've said Bush is a war criminal. Now, that may be technically true. In my world, war criminal is Pol Pot or the Nuremburg trials. ...I think that's such an incendiary charge that when you put it in the conversation as...well, technically he is. That may be right. But it feels like a conversation stopper, not a conversation starter. ...We were talking about tone, not content necessarily."

[DutchLiberal]

21. Oh, I agree with you on that --and I disagree with Stewart on that.

I should have stated that in my opening post.

You are right, bowing down to bullies is not an effective way to deal with them --and the Republicans and their tv and radio parrots are bullies. In this case, I agree with Bill Maher who's always harping on how Democrats need to toughen up.

And then on the other hand, I still can't help but think that "they do it too" isn't really a good excuse. So actually I continually shift positions from Maher to Stewart and back on this issue. I guess that's why I'm a liberal: I believe doubt is good. (If only Bush had more doubt and less faith, the country would've been much better off.)

The issue I was raising is: why can't a lot of people simply disagree with him without distorting what he says (like claiming he equated MSNBC with Fox, which he did not) or throw him under the buss? And remember, people on DU were mostly freaked out about his stance on George Bush and the Iraq War --a stance he has consistently taken during the last 8 years.

[iris27]

25. I think people can take a different message from what he presents than the one he may have

intended, without necessarily being wrong or misguided. He might not have "meant" to equate Fox and MSNBC, but that's how that montage of media clips came across to a lot of us. For him to just go back now and saying, "No - guys - you misunderstood!" is condescending. It's not like he's saying, "Okay, I see your point, we could've presented our case a little differently to get our point across better."

And honestly, his defensiveness about it isn't helping. One the right, there are people stomping on a protestor's head. On the left, there are people making verbal criticisms about a rally...that Stewart turns into jokes about being punched repeatedly in the face and gut.

Another problem is that there is a side of Stewart that HAS always been there, but that a lot of us have willfully ignored in the past to still enjoy his show - that he is a lot more moderate than most think, at least when it comes to areas where he has no personal stake in the game. I remember watching his interview with Huckabee back in 2008, who was saying some truly terrifying shit about abortion rights, and Jon ended the interview by saying, "I can be incredibly certain about so many issues and get my dander up and be self-righteous. This is one that I can't.... it's a very difficult issue, and I hope people begin to see that both sides can come out of it with intentions and not frenzied and maniacal on one side and callous and indifferent on the other..."

So, yeah, it's not a new thing for him. But that side, through the rally and its subsequent coverage, is now a lot more in-your-face and harder to ignore. So people who have been brushing those occasional moments aside to be able to laugh four nights a week are now finding it a lot more difficult to do so.

[DutchLiberal]

38. What's wrong with being a moderate?

You make it sound like it's something horrible.

For instance, you act like he did something wrong in his interview with Huckabee. But I thought he was being very respectful. He doesn't say he agrees with Huckabee, but he acknowledges that Huckabee is probably sincere in his beliefs and believes he's doing the right thing. Well, *we* also believe we're doing the right thing, don't we? So why should that be any different for Huckabee? You don't have to agree with somebody or even condone his points of view to recognize they're sincere.

But you got to acknowledge that he has been much more critical with some serious politicians or opinion makers than the 'real' journalists. Jim Cramer, Dick Armey, Eric Cantor and even Tony Blair got their toughest treatment on 'The Daily Show'. Yes, he doesn't go after all his guests with the same vigor (like Condi Rice), but then again... he's a comedian, and why should he do the job all our real journalists are supposed to do?

I never had to 'brush something of' or ignore in order to continue to watch his show. Because I don't have to agree with somebody 100% of the time to respect them.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

35. You're wrong. And being hyperbolic.

No one sets out to deny someone's basic humanity simply for the sake of denying someone's basic humanity. There's usually another motive: money/power/whatever.

Once you go there the conversation is pretty much over. That's the point--making it a conversation and not a closing argument. That's how solutions happen.

I agree with Jon when he says that perhaps our perspectives become warped after watching too much mainstream news. It's simply not reflective of the real world. In reality, we work, get along and compromise every day with people we disagree with.

[kentuck]

15. I would say to Jon, "Look around"...

You see an economy in shambles. That was done primarily by George W Bush and the Republicans. They inherited a balanced budget.

Look around. This discussion we are having about the debt commission and cutting Social Security, it was because of George W Bush and the Republicans. They cut taxes to the bone during war time. Actually during two war times. Now they say that they screwed things up so badly, that we cannot afford to raise taxes during an economic downtown of this magnitude.

Please don't compare the two.

[deacon]

17. Much ado about nothing. n/t

[annabanana]

23. I do believe that much of the criticism was manufactured.

I enjoy watching two intelligent, well informed people have a thoughtful discussion. The general collegiality evident is a thorn in the side of the batshit wingnut brigade and their paid disruptors...hence.. disruption.

[Doctor_J]

24. Yes. He never claimed that Keith is as bad as Beck, or

that Pelosi is as crazy as Bachmann. He said that there is no sane, issue-based political discussion in the US any more, and that is probably true.

He is still on our side

[spooky3]

26. Very thought-provoking post. Thank you.

[DutchLiberal]

39. I'm glad you liked it. (n/t)

[Ramulux]

29. I mostly agree with you

The people who are acting like Stewart just came out as a closet republican are definitely over-reacting. However, my problem lies more with this whole faux-moderate act Stewart seems to be doing recently. Whether its Maddow's interview, his recent interviews with various republicans, or the rally he seems to be trying to pretend like he isn't a liberal and is attempting to distance himself from the so-called "left". I am not really sure why he is doing this because it doesnt add up with so many of the things he has said over the years.

Also, hes just flat-out wrong about Fox News and George Bush. George Bush is an evil piece of shit, I dont care whether he was being manipulated or not. Fox News is also 100% propaganda and Stewart knows it, I think that's why he has upset so many people with his weak attempt to kind of defend them.

The point is that Stewart has said some things in recent weeks that haven't really made a lot of sense, especially when you compare them to things he has said throughout his career. That doesn't mean he's some asshole or that we should stop watching his show, it simply means that some of us disagree with some things he has said.

[DutchLiberal]

40. It seems to me Stewart has been very consistent...

He admitted to Maddow that he thinks Fox is in a league all of their own. There's nothing to compare them to, and this is what he shows every week on his show. Even in the episode where he made fun of the criticism of the rally, he acknowledged the difference between a channel like MSNBC and Fox. So I really can't see how he's protecting Fox News.

Nor can I see how he's doing a "faux-moderate act". Remember that over the years, Stewart has always attacked both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. Because the batshit concentrated mainly on the far right, they were an easy target and so it may have seemed he was a hard left-winger, but he had his fair share of criticism of the left also (mainly not being effective or competent enough).

Same thing with Bush: Stewart always presented Bush as a naive, childish, easily manipulated person, with the real evil people Cheney and Rumsfeld behind him. You may not agree with that, but at least Stewart has been consistent.

It seems the other way around to me. A lot of people had a certain image of Stewart; they had put a label on him, cast him in a certain role. When he did or said something even slightly different from that role, people got upset. They had projected something upon him which he was not (just like they did with Obama) and then threw him under the buss for not "being their monkey".

[Blecht]

30. Great post

Thanks for taking the time to put together such a coherent summary of the situation.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

32. This is a wonderfully coherent OP

in defense of Jon Stewart and his message. This a perspective I share as well. It was refreshing to watch and gave me hope the media/national conversation may be directed into a more positive direction! Like you said, I rarely see this calibre of interview on other MSN networks.