Comments on: Stop. Stop hurting America.

Stop. Stop hurting America.

Mephistopheles — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:55:04 -0800

Jon Stewart in Wired

By: ?!

?! — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:00:58 -0800

Jon Stewart on television

By: Balisong

Balisong — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:06:59 -0800

John Stewart in my dreams. (President John Stewart?)

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:11:36 -0800

Worth noting that Meph's user page includes, "THIS IS A PRETTY_GENERIC SOCK PUPPET HELLO," no email address, and two posts, the first of which was something Meph hirself described with, "I don't know whether it's real or not. I was hoping someone else could find out." And now this. Can we try just a little harder, please?

By: rusty

rusty — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:12:16 -0800

For an interview with Jon Stewart, that was surprisingly dull. He didn't seem interested in the questions at all, and I can't say I blame him. For those who don't want to bother reading it, here's the one question executive summary: Wired: So, like, will we watch TV on the internet? Jon Stewart: Who cares?

By: Balisong

Balisong — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:15:26 -0800

Now, Mediareport, not all of us like to be shamed for FPP's to our faces. Sock Pupetts are just another mask that some posters here need to get their courage up in order to weather the storm that usually comes after a single link post to an interview gets.

By: Mephistopheles

Mephistopheles — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:16:59 -0800

mediareport, I'm sorry for whatever I did to your ancestors in a past life.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:17:48 -0800

Aw, Damnit! I ended a sentance with a preposition! Just the way they always told me it might.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:24:44 -0800

"Jon Stewart is My Hero) because he is a member of the GameSpy Network." Via googletalk, which I discovered a few threads back.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:27:20 -0800

"gets" ain't a preposition, and sentance just ain't.

By: ryanhealy

ryanhealy — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:35:59 -0800

That was mostly a ridiculous interview. I don't understand why Jon Stewart and his producer (?) would be on the receiving end of questions about how content will be delivered in the future. That said, Jon Stewart is my hero.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:42:20 -0800

Well, there you go, then.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:56:57 -0800

Wired doesn't seem to get it. They probably just wanted an interview with him because he's so popular.

By: gsb

gsb — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:03:59 -0800

Why is Jon Stewart heroic?

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:07:27 -0800

He is heroic in the sense that all people who tell it like it is are heroic. In this day and age, the ability of a public figure to talk without dissembling is rare and should be lauded.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:18:02 -0800

Yeah, he doesn't use Newspeak like everyone else on TV does. For that, he is truly a pioneer in these media troubled times.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:33:20 -0800

He is heroic in the sense that all people who tell it like it is are heroic. I thought that was fools. Are fools heroic now? I dunno, they always seem to wilt when they're needed the most. mediareport, I'm sorry for whatever I did to your ancestors in a past life. You weren't funny. They hated you for that.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:58:30 -0800

Fools tell it like it is? So anyone who isn't spouting propaganda is a fool?

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:08:34 -0800

If it's a tug-o-war between the fools and the jackasses, I'm rootin' for the fools.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:17:53 -0800

Oh, Jon Stewart, he's funny.

By: NinjaPirate

NinjaPirate — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:57:12 -0800

mediareport, mephistopheles first post was actually a good joke at his own expense. Maybe your ancestors were miserable anyway.

By: StephenV

StephenV — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:29:55 -0800

Heh, I still think it's funny that a friend of mine actually registered stophurtingamerica.com right after Stewart did that. Hooray for the intarweb.

By: gsb

gsb — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:47:18 -0800

nightchrome, your answer looks like a lowering of the bar for heroism. I always thought a hero carries out a selfless act, and clearly Jon Stewart is raking in the cash... his market is taking the piss out of the woeful media apparatus in America. Of course the two can go hand in hand, but precipitously. Now Bill Maher, back to the point where he lost his show on ABC, that was mildly heroic because it cost him a fair bit at that time. I guess this is a self-defeating argument, instead of talking about Jon Stewart as a hero, why not just say he's doing his job? A lot of journalists are not doing their job very well and still attract advertising revenue, and it takes a 'comedian' to point that out and attract even more advertising revenue. Pop will eat itself, and all that. And Stewart's constant turning every answer into a joke is sooo very tired, I mean, nobody can be that funny all of the time -- apart from Chris Morris.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:07:38 -0800

Tip: Do not take an entertainer more seriously than they take themselves.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:14:30 -0800

Are fools heroic now? They often are, and have been. The bravery required to be heroic requires no small amount of foolishness. And The Fool, as an archetype, is nothing if not brave.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:42:57 -0800

Good god, if you people are looking for heros on television, you're just as taken in as the rest of them. Jon Stewart is hip, yeah, and he 'tells it like it is;' he's not afraid to pander to one market segment by offending another. Woohoo. Besides, TwelveTwo had it up above; the man never pretended to be a hero. stavros: "They often are, and have been. The bravery required to be heroic requires no small amount of foolishness. And The Fool, as an archetype, is nothing if not brave." This might be true in some sort of Cervantine world where heroism is typified by a superhuman bravery. But bravery, in my opinion, isn't the most heroic of virtues; my heroes are wise, not foolish. But maybe that's because I spend too much time reading Homer. I don't guess we've got the same definition of 'foolish,' however.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:04:10 -0800

A lot of journalists are not doing their job very well au contraire mon frère! Unless you are under the mistaken impression that their job is to serve the public interest at the expense of ratings... what are you, communist? Stewart's heroism (for me at a least) stems from the darker days of 2002-2003, when his show was the only "news"-esque outlet not going with the flow on the march to war. The very existence of this counter-propagandizing issue treatment on what was otherwise Corporatocratic TV was rather perplexing at the time to me. Perhaps being on "Comedy Central", a rather oddball media outlet in its own right (split-owned by Viacom and TW), let them fly under the radar, whereas any other news-commentary show would have much closer editorial oversight and accountability linkages with the major media players.

By: gsb

gsb — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:37:40 -0800

Heywood, I did mention advertising revenues. >Unless you are under the mistaken impression that their job is to serve the public interest at the expense of ratings... what are you, communist? Heywood, I did mention advertising revenues. You see, I love advertising, I really love it. Therefore, I have not now, or ever have been a member of the Communist Party. I don't think serving the public interest and having high ratings are mutually exclusive. Well, not yet. I guess I dont appreciate the 'subversive' nature of Jon Stewart. Another thing, way back in my childhood, my English teacher told me how some satarists tread the line between tragedy or farce -- it's a crude categorisation, but I was young so it's forgiven. Some truly great plays or tomes span the two quite easily. I like farce, it's all good rip-roaring fun, but after a while I find it quite boring because the chapters keep being replayed over and over again. I prefer tragedies, even the diffuse ones with no resolutions but some understanding. Maybe it's because I'm a pessimistic person, or maybe it's because I can't find the humour in the farce any longer. The laugh has gone from the belly and become a bit nervous. pointing out the farce ≠ heroism

By: gsb

gsb — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:38:51 -0800

sorry, 'satirists'

By: Hat Maui

Hat Maui — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 04:23:43 -0800

look a bit closer -- the man you've canonized is every bit the media sycophant that, say, larry king is. he's a suckass who is savvy -- he can make wry jokes when newt gingrich is on his couch, because it doesn't count. but put someone relevant out there, he either wilts or felches. if it's rick santorum, he wilts; if it's lewis lapham, he felches. it's pathetic either way.

By: realcountrymusic

realcountrymusic — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 04:44:00 -0800

Well, I think this interview provided the best possible new MeFi tagline ever when Stewart said: I agree. I agree with me. The dude is seriously funny, and he takes the piss out of his colleagues reporting the "news." Good stuff.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 04:46:57 -0800

cf. "Bizarrely, Zakaria cites The Daily Show as an inspiration for his own earnest series, because 'it gets to the core of news items in a funny, quick way.' " + natalie portman :D cheers!

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:32:52 -0800

President John Stewart? If nominated; he wouldn't run; if elected, he wouldn't serve. Amid all the gentle snarkiness, there's a lot of modesty, and I think he's painfully aware of his limitations and the tremendous difficulties of the job -- he'd shy away from it because he'd want to give it the earnestness it deserves, and he knows that's not in his nature. I'm starting to agree grudgingly with my father that only megalomanics aspire to the post of President of the US. Mere mortals with clay feet and knowledge of their limitations wouldn't touch such a difficult job with a ten-foot pole. I enjoyed Tom Clancy's couple of Jack Ryan novels that dealt with that character, essentially an Everyman of sorts, struggling to fit into the role. It bothers me that certain recent occupants of the Oval Office seem a little too glib in acting Presidential -- I'd love to have more of a Cincinnatus type, and actually a Jon Stewart, with some sense of self-doubt, might be a refreshing change.

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:10:20 -0800

gentle snarkiness Gentle?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:15:32 -0800

he's no hero--he's just poking the media and politicians daily with a stick, sometimes sharpened, and sometimes blunt. I find it hysterical that all sorts of media and political figures still want to be on his show. He is way way too respectful of hateful politicians tho.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:26:09 -0800

can make wry jokes when newt gingrich is on his couch, because it doesn't count. but put someone relevant out there, he either wilts or felches. I heard the same argument out of Fucker Carlson. Stewart chairs a comedy program. Why don't you attack Jay Leno for not asking the "tough questions?" Why don't you attack blabbering heads that actually run "news" programs like Carlson, Novak, Hannity & Colmes, etc. when they softball? Stewart, though not really heroic, is at least presenting a comedy program that does not assume that the public are a bunch of saps. For that he deserves praise. His comedy satire of the days events and of the media does not softball the audience even if they don't skewer the guests in the 4 minutes they appear.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:40:29 -0800

Gentle [snarkiness] ? Compared to, say, Denis Leary or Chris Rock...yeah, I'd say more in sorrow than in anger.

By: glenwood

glenwood — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:52:34 -0800

Even if this were an awesome interview it shouldn't be a FPP. As it turns out, it is not an awesome interview.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:52:57 -0800

This might be true in some sort of Cervantine world where heroism is typified by a superhuman bravery. I think you misunderstand me, or I you. That's OK, though. Mocking dissent is Cervantine, I think, by it's very nature. But I do not see any linkage between that and 'superhuman bravery' as a substrate of any but the most Boys' World duotone nostalgia understanding of heroism. Which doesn't really matter one way or 'tother, 'cause in my humble the heroic view of history -- coral-grown and always accreting -- is a distorting and destructive one. Regardless, I wasn't talking about Stewart, just commenting on mediareport's rhetorical question.

By: voltairemodern

voltairemodern — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:55:13 -0800

And now this. Can we try just a little harder, please? Oh, yes, this post was horrendous! The discussion it spawned was like a massacre of ideas, as though thoughts were tangible entities and this post inspired you all to rend them in the most viscerally gruesome ways. God, I feel so dirty having posted here myself--I know I should save my comments for pure threads--but I just wanted to stop in and let you all know that this thread made me weep. Just stop. Stop. Stop hurting MetaFilter. The post didn't even take up that much front page space, and I wouldn't have seen the interview otherwise, and this (interesting) discussion of Jon Stewart's role, self-proclaimed and audience-perceived, wouldn't have occurred. Go read threads you find interesting, mediareport.

By: mrblondemang

mrblondemang — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:36:56 -0800

Jon Stewart is just another douchebag shoving products down our collective throats. May he die a slow and painful death soon, along with all of his sackriding admirers.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:59:00 -0800

Now, now mrblondmang, we don't advocate murder or assassination around here (unless it is Hugo Chavez).

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:08:22 -0800

Lot of bitter people in this thread.

By: glenwood

glenwood — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:11:53 -0800

mrblondemang, please expound on your insightful and unfounded analysis.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:14:19 -0800

Wait, what was it Jon Stewart was selling? I missed it.

By: mullacc

mullacc — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:23:29 -0800

I don't understand why Stewart has guest like Santorum on his show. He, understandably I think, doesn't ask them tough questions and the guest themselves seem to tone it down for fear of being called out. The result is just blah. I'd rather they just did away with the whole interview portion of the show.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:24:52 -0800

Wait, what was it Jon Stewart was selling? I missed it. America the book. Indecision '04 the DVD set.

By: elendil71

elendil71 — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:57:56 -0800

Quite a few trolls prowling the thread here. While at times Stewart's comedic or satiric "neutrality" comes across as disingenuous, he has the distinction, I think, of honestly trying just to do his job - which is to poke fun at current events. I think he would be a very great fool not to realize the cultural impact he is having. That being said, articles/interviews like the post above pretty much support what he's been claiming all along: He's a comedian. If you want serious issues addressed, demand that of your elected representatives. The best comments of John Stewart, like the infamous Crossfire episode, is probably more the reflection of a smart man, aware of his media impact, really just getting fed up and speaking out. I have a great deal of respect for Stewart. He's no hero, but he is a very smart, very perceptive man, who has wisely used his role as comedian to play the time-honored role of the Fool.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:04:54 -0800

Metafilter: Can we try just a little harder, please?

By: cenoxo

cenoxo — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:09:48 -0800

Jon Stewart + Wired = Tired (not quite expired.) Too much media exposure dulls a sharp tongue.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:18:06 -0800

His rep for candour/courage/"telling it like it is" went down a number of notches for me after he had Robert Kennedy on last month; Kennedy sat there and rabbitted on and on and on with the lamest conspiracy theories re: Thimerosal and autism and Stewart just sat there, much like the dull-witted CNN anchors he regularly excoriates...

By: shockingbluamp

shockingbluamp — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:26:33 -0800

Jon Stewart has never been in my living room.

By: spock

spock — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:18:44 -0800

Metafilter: I'd say 12 percent goodness, 88 percent crapola.

By: Malenfant

Malenfant — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:23:58 -0800

Stewart just sat there, much like the dull-witted CNN anchors The daily show isn't about attacking guests. Yes it would have been nice if he did some research into the topic before the show and pointed out that there doesn't seem to be a connection, but I don't think you should think any less of him for not being up on the latest research. It would be nice if someone discovered the real reason for the increase in Autism.

By: esquire

esquire — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:29:34 -0800

Rusty: surprised that Jon Stewart acted so cynically hip?

By: esquire

esquire — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:35:42 -0800

Malenfant: true it is about attacking *conservative* guests. The Daily Show is nothing more than warmed-over liberal conventional wisdom, but slightly funnier because it is not quite as well-mannered. Dennis Miller called. He said something about wanting his schtick back and mentioned that he was willing to trade in his newfound conservatism for it if necessary.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:10:23 -0800

but I don't think you should think any less of him for not being up on the latest research. Why not? This is exactly how he skewers the Wolf Blitzer/Kyra Philips of the world.

By: meh

meh — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:03:10 -0800

From the page: ---> You shouldn't say: "I really want to know what fans think. I really want to understand how people are digesting our show." Because that is one of those things that you truly have no control over. The one thing that you have control over is the content of the show. But how people are reacting to it, how it's being shared, how it's being discussed, all that other stuff, is absolutely beyond your ability to control. Despite all this, I'll bet you anything The Daily Show staff is aware of this thread. Stewart seems to lead off with whatever story is "hot" on the blogs. His audience is the Internet. TDS is a "crossover" internet/TV show.

By: es_de_bah

es_de_bah — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:02:18 -0800

I'd rather they just did away with the whole interview portion of the show. posted by mullacc at 8:23 AM PST on August 24 [!] I've thought that. Especially after the election ended and they had to go back to interviewing Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz. I usually stop watching now.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:37:54 -0800

There's an interview portion of the show?

By: scheptech

scheptech — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 07:56:15 -0800

It bothers me that certain recent occupants of the Oval Office seem a little too glib in acting Presidential Because all they're required to do is act. Cincinnatus or George Washington would be seriously overqualified today. The POTUS has two job functions: get elected and act as national spokesperson. This is why the current guy can spend half his time on vacation. Btw, it's interesting to note - the last guy was way above average smart, the current, well maybe more the other direction and yet they're both 2-term'ers... see it doesn't matter what they do or are capable of beyond getting elected and delivering someone elses speeches every once in a while. Oh and yeah, ditch the interview, weakest part of the show for sure.