Stewart vs. Wallace
The Sunday “debate” between Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace and comedian Jon Stewart was interesting and entertaining, and I thought both men came off okay, though I would give the match to Stewart on points. I feel the same way about conservatives who criticize Stewart’s show as I do about liberals who rip Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. Both are entertainment shows—comedy shows, if you will—and they each carry the political imprint of its host. Holding them up to some sort of balanced journalistic standards doesn’t make any sense.
Sure, Stewart seemed either naïve or disingenuous when asked about liberal bias in the press, but Wallace seemed to be stretching to find some “gotcha” quotes from Stewart. Are there people who think they’ve gotten the day’s news when they watch The Daily Show? I suppose so, but that’s not Jon Stewart’s fault. If the smirks and funny pictures and audience applause don’t clue you in, there’s probably not much hope for you anyway. I think Stewart is smart and funny and probably more politically motivated than he admits even to himself, but so what?
Conservatives are correct in criticizing biased coverage in the news media, but we risk looking like humorless scolds when trying to apply such standards to a show that, after all, is aired on a network called Comedy Central.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
I don't have cable, but I've watched a lot of Jon Stewart online. I must say, I actually find the guy, while he makes few bones about his politics, to be pretty balanced.
He specializes in satire and he's quite willing to mock the Left equally with the Right.
I admire the guy. He's incredibly good at what he does and he does it with intelligence and wit, unlike most of the meat-hammer comedians on the Left.
Edited on Jun 20, 2011 at 11:46amApr '11
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Comedians had to use kid gloves with Obama for a while, but we're past that now and so I don't find things as one-sided as they were circa 2009 when we had to deal with non-stop Palin, Tea Party jokes. One of Stewart's better bits was when he lampooned Olbermann and his use of his glasses.
Sep '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
I agree pretty much. Let Stewart be Stewart. He can be pretty funny. But it isn't funny when you know the humor is based upon a false premise, and so much of his stuff does. He appeals to Democrat partisans because they all agree on certain assumptions, Bush is stupid etc. It's like the old ethnic jokes. You have to believe the Poles are stupid, Jews are cheap, Blondes are dumb etc. in order to think the joke is funny. Poles, Jews and blondes don't like these jokes, and why the hell should they? People don't really believe these things (okay some do) generally we just agree upon a certain stereotype for the sake of the joke. It is a variant on theater's willing suspension of disbelief idea.
Stewart has some talent, but really, he has a staff of writers and he makes faces. Our side should be doing that too - it isn't that hard.
Edited on Jun 20, 2011 at 12:03pmRe: Stewart vs. Wallace
One thing I thought funny about the exchange was how Stewart appealed to surveys "proving" that Fox viewers are less informed than other viewers. I decided to check out these surveys. Over at the Christian Science Monitor, I learned that this is one of the questions used to make that assessment:
And then we learn that almost all elite economists predicted job gains. Who cares that they were wrong, the question is about what the economists themselves (erroneously) predicted. Then the Monitor writes: "Ninety-one percent of those who watched Fox News almost daily believed that the stimulus caused job losses."
So wait, was the question about what ECONOMISTS predicted? or about reality? And isn't it funny that the Monitor can't even remain consistent from the question to the answer?
Beyond all that, I feel like this is some bizarro world where Fox News viewers are mocked for properly assessing reality in contrast to elite predictions.
Sep '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
I thought that was a good segment and I can't say enough about the poise and good humor displayed here by Chris Wallace. Stewart got into quite an eye-popping rant about the activist nature of Fox News and the illiteracy of its audience, and Wallace did not blink an eye. I would have liked him perhaps to challenge Stewart to actually name one of the multitude of surveys which all find that Fox News watchers are by far the most uninformed audience in the mediaverse.
Jun '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Kenneth: I don't have cable, but I've watched a lot of Jon Stewart online. I must say, I actually find the guy, while he makes few bones about his politics, to be pretty balanced.
He specializes in satire and he's quite willing to mock the Left equally with the Right.
Well, he's doing a pretty good job now that he's decided it's okay to make fun of President Obama (at least occasionally). There was a long while there after the 2008 election (and even the 2009 inauguration) where he was conspicuously silent on Obama, and then pulling punches when he would actually bring something up.
May '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Wait. Rush's show is "entertainment"? It's true that various radio shows have varying entertainment components (Beck and Rush are towards the high end of the range; Prager, Medved and Hewitt are towards the low end), but Rush is primarily entertainment? Really?!
Apr '11
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
I thought Wallace did a poor job with the opportunity he had and Stewart won the exchange.
Although credit goes to Chris for keeping his cool when Stewart was ranting, it was a shame that he didn't seem prepared to respond to Stewart on the misinformed issue.
Stewart was right about right wingers not getting that it was comedy first and bias second. Chris needed to go after The Daily Show for bias preventing conservatives from getting a break on his show and on the other networks, and that the response to the other side is always ridicule as stupid, crazy, and evil rather than substantive.
Was he not offering up to Wallace an example of an at least libertarian point of view getting across with his repeated mention of South Park?
Stewart's shtick bemoaning the fact the he is taken more seriously than news journalists is tiring and should be taken to task for the elitist disdain for average tastes that I think it represents. Artists and humorists have always been an important and deliberate part of political discussion.
Edited on Jun 20, 2011 at 12:42pmJun '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
The 2nd question is even better:
2. Is it your impression that among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years:
Now here's the "answer:"
In March 2010 Congressional Budget Office released an estimate of how the then-pending health care legislation would affect the deficit if it passed. The CBO calculated that the net effect through 2019 would be to reduce the deficit by $124 billion. Beyond 2019, the CBO estimated that the Affordable Care Act would reduce the deficit by roughly 0.5 percent of GDP. Seventy-two percent of daily Fox News viewers got this wrong.
Jan '11
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Breitbart does a great job of demanding specifics and evidence for statements of his opponents - I think Wallace would have come across much better had he also gone down that road.
Stewart came out relatively undamaged - because he wasn't asked to provide proof for his beliefs.
Even a rough tally of denigrating Palin jokes vs uncomplimentary Obama jokes per episode would have been interesting . . . . .
Sep '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Its too bad Chris Wallace couldn't have run a clip of Stewart's tete a tete with John Yoo just to hear Stewart stammer out: "John Who?"
Oct '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
That was painful, I could only get through about half of it. What I saw was Wallace missing numerous opportunities to strengthen his points. When Stewart said the NYT's jumping on the Weiner story showed they were sensationalist, not biased, why didn't Wallace point how long it took them, or mention the interminable silence in the Edwards story. Quibbles, I know, but Chris Wallace seemed flat-footed while Stewart was nimble.Wallace seemed like he couldn't break away from his prearranged talking points and follow the conversation when Stewart broke from the narrative.
I thought that Stewart was a little disingenuous about the degree of his bias, but I think he was sincere when he said he was a comic first and political second. This reminded me of something C. S. Lewis said about the need for there to be Christian novelists, not so there would be more explicitly Christian novels, but so that their Christianity would provide an unconscious (seemingly) moral backdrop for their writing. (Of course, being C.S.Lewis, he said it a couple of magnitudes better.)
We need more Claires and Klavans and Longs. It is happening, but faster would be better.
Mar '11
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
I watched the unedited interview online. It seemed like the normal liberal position that they are unbiased, and that conservatives are stupid.
It's like NPR in the US, and the BBC and Guardian in the UK.
Oct '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
What will the Jon Stewarts of the world offer as their excuse when it turns out that nirvana wasn't really just an Obamacare away? We're headed for a concrete wall at 120mph and John Stewart wants to talk about Fox viewers' ignorant refusal to believe liberal economists and meaningless CBO numbers! Really?
We may avert tragedy, but not disaster. If Jon Stewart were half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd get that much.
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
I think that Jon Stewart is a stitch, and I suspect that he is educable. The Obama administration provides a teaching moment. And Stewart isn't a complete fool. He knows that these people -- his people -- have failed abysmally. They are his people, nonetheless. But, in time, . . We should have him on a Ricochet podcast. I want to listen to James Lileks and Rob Long tear into him, and Peter Robinson can in his gentle way be wicked.
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Au contraire mon frere.
When Stewart has as conservaitve on the hook (he's willing to fudge facts to hook them) he's a twisted, sadistic killer enjoying blood from a severed artery.
When it's a liberal, he uses jokes of avoidence. Most of the segment will be off topic. On Obama, its a "Can you believe what this smart guy has to put with?" sort of bit.
Why was it lost on the world that his Washington gig, partly about civility, came from the most uncivil person in political commentary?
His worst was on Rick Sanchez. I don't know Rick's politics. Why was the irony lost on Stewart, that Stewart gets paid for making fun of Sanchez, and Sanchez was fired for making fun of Stewart?
The day after Sanchez was fired, Stewart should have beat up CNN.
Instead, on one of the worst days of Sanchez's life, where suddenly his family finances are in jeopardy, Stewart ripped him again.
What a bully.
I wouldn't blame Sanchez if he put one right on Stewart's jaw for that.
Edited on Jun 20, 2011 at 4:04pmAug '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Yes, yes there are. I know and have met them. My impression of the people that fall into that category are: 1) they know it's a satirical take on the news but agree with what is presented as being true anyway, or 2) they think Jon Stewart is giving them news that the normal news programs don't. Most people fall into #1 that I know personally but I have talked to a couple of people in #2.
I find it all related to the notion that because it's on TV it must be true (especially, when it re-enforces their own beliefs).
Aug '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
Surely Rush is a polemicist first and foremost? The humour and entertainment are subordinate to the message.
Jan '11
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
That interview was a deep step down for Fox News Sunday. What did Chris Wallace expect viewers to learn in this interview? What in Stewart's background gives him authority to speak to social political issues? He's a liberal comedian who's comments were typically reflexive - that's what he got and that's what Wallace should have expected. What a waste of time. I hope this isn't a portent of things to come on FNS. Who's next, Lady Gaga?
Sep '10
Re: Stewart vs. Wallace
My liberal friends--yes, I have some--straddle the line on this. On the one hand, they would admit that this is entertainment, not straight news. But they also think that Jon Stewart is actually giving us the real story that mainstream news organizations like NPR are just too cowardly and conservative to report. Really. That's how they think.