Pathetic anti-Jon Stewart opinion piece in the Boston Glove today

:puke: :puke:

Why Jon Stewart isn't funny

THE SELECTION of Jon Stewart as the host for Sunday night's 2006 Oscars undoubtedly marks a career milestone for the aspiring king of late-night comedy. Unfortunately, however, the ascension of Stewart and ''The Daily Show" into the public eye is no laughing matter. Stewart's ever-increasing popularity among young viewers directly correlates with the declining influence of progressive thought in America. Coincidence? I think not. Let me explain.

Meet Joshua Goldberg, a fictional composite of the typical apostle of ''The Daily Show." Born in Newton, Goldberg attended Newton South High School where he played an integral role in securing the school's debate championship. His 3.8 grade point average and impressive array of extracurricular activities earned him a scholarship to Vassar, where he majored in political science and joined a Jewish fraternity. Throughout his formal education, Goldberg stayed up-to-date on national politics through nightly coverage on ''The Daily Show" and even led a petition to protest the genocide in Darfur. Many of Stewart's die-hard supporters might use this persona as proof that ''The Daily Show" engages disillusioned viewers who otherwise could not be reached. This argument, however, fails to consider the ultimate career path of Josh Goldberg: Upon graduation in 2004, he accepted a prestigious job as an analyst at Morgan Stanley. Although he no longer follows Washington's daily political squabbles, Goldberg gives a significant annual contribution to the Democratic Party.

The tragedy of this portrait is not that investment banking corrupts young souls (although one could argue otherwise), but rather that the students who abandon politics out of a naive self-consciousness often represent our country's most idealistic minds. Stewart's daily dose of political parody characterized by asinine alliteration leads to a ''holier than art thou" attitude toward our national leaders. People who possess the wit, intelligence, and self-awareness of viewers of ''The Daily Show" would never choose to enter the political fray full of ''buffoons and idiots." Content to remain perched atop their Olympian ivory towers, these bright leaders head straight for the private sector.

-snip-

The type of folksy solemnity brandished by President Bush does not resonate with ''The Daily Show" demographic. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, only 2 percent of the show's audience identify themselves as conservatives. At a time when the Democrats desperately need inspired leadership, the show's self-conscious aloofness pervades the liberal punditry. Although Stewart's comedic shticks may thus earn him some laughs Sunday at the Oscars, his routine will certainly not match the impact of his greatest irony: Jon Stewart undermines any remaining earnestness that liberals in America might still possess.

The stupid putz should demand his money back!!!!

He doesn't know funny, after all that education?? Well, he'll NEVER know funny!

And that's 2005, which gives him a solid 6 months post-college life experience.

The university consists of the law school, the med school, the grad schools, and so on. But hey, the kid still got ripped off--he has no sense of humor...perhaps one of the med school students removed his funny bone when he got drunk at one of the lousy frat parties!

The university used to aggressively discourage them, but they have always been there and they are increasing in popularity in recent years, despite lack of university recognition"

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=27486

Although Harvard does not officially recognize fraternities and sororities, that does not mean they do not exist. The majority of fraternities do not, however, have houses, making it difficult for some Harvard students to locate parties.

"People feel like the parties at Harvard suck because most people don't know where the party is at," Harvard sophomore Kevin Chan said. "Some blame it on the fact that it is because we don't have a Greek system. However, there are consistent parties irregardless of frat houses."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=214606


Evicted from 43-45 Mount Auburn St. this fall, Harvard’s Kappa Eta chapter of the national fraternity has been knocked down to the ranks of the other homeless social groups on campus. And since College policy refuses to recognize single-sex organizations, junior common rooms and classrooms are off-limits—at least technically.

So they wander in the proverbial desert, finding temporary oases like the Advocate building and the third floor of the Kong. The promised land is just a few steps away from Tommy’s Value: their former chapter house. Its only current inhabitant is a “FOR SALE” sign, placed there by the Pi Eta Speakers Associates.

Until a little over a year ago, Sigma Chi and Pi Eta were partners, hoping to continue the tradition of non-final club social life at Harvard. Their relationship soured when Pi Eta decided it was time to sell the house. Sigma Chi filed a suit against Pi Eta, Pi Eta filed a countersuit against Sigma Chi, and now the only date in their future seems to be the one in court.
....Fraternities at Harvard have always faced a serious obstacle—Harvard doesn’t like them. It started when Phi Beta Kappa was almost kicked off campus in 1831 until members revealed their rituals, like their secret handshake. Since then, administrators have been concerned about outsiders ordering Harvard students around, and students have traditionally preferred more elite Harvard-based clubs, so national Greek organizations tend to be short-lived at best.

But in recent years, Greek groups have experienced a surge of popularity. Sigma Chi started the wave when four students formed a colony in 1989. After they maintained an active and interested group for a few years, the national fraternity granted the Harvard students a charter to become the Kappa Eta chapter in 1992....

http://www.seifc.org/docs/Sound%20S02.pdf

Harvard Fraternities and Sororities Rise from the Ashes

Recent changes to undergraduate housing policies, complaints of a poor social life and an in-stitutional crackdown on single-sex organizations have spurred the redevelopment of fraternities and sororities at Harvard University. Hundreds have joined fraternities and sororities at Harvard in the last two years and the school now has five fraternities, two sororities and three all-female clubs. The trend has emerged despite Harvard’s ban on single-sex organizations and an almost century-long institutional effort of derecognition.-The Dartmouth, 02/14/02

and I can testify that it has nothing to do with the University....so it must be

his home training!

saying that Stewart has done his job too well.

Some dude finds a high paying job and therefore Jon Stewart is not funny. Right.

No wonder why people like this are so out of touch.

"Michael Kalin is a 2005 graduate of Harvard College"

That's his credentials?

"Meet Joshua Goldberg, a fictional composite of the typical apostle of The Daily Show."...so he uses a fictional character he created to show kids would give up their beliefs to be investment bankers after watching TDS? Wow. The Boston Globe should be embarrassed by this ridiculous crap.

While i was reading it all i could think was "This is some seriously tortured logic." Typical two dimensional thinking, that.
The Professor

methinks Mr. Stewart would absolutely love it . . .

although they screech "why don't you _do_ something" like the worst stereotypical shrew without capabilities of her own, they are in fact not interested in action, but rather in transactions of symbol, putative transference and recognition where the philosopher king returns and leads the people out of the threat of darkness and they revere him and allow themselves to believe they see his reflection in themselves. Being someone's reflection is always a problem, and while practicing feelings of reverence is one way to trigger the release of pleasure-oriented neurotransmitters, it unfortunately also enables fascism and religious extremism. I prefer to get my jollies in more concrete ways.

I bet this Michael was the laughing stock at Harvard College where he went to school. I also bet that he thinks Rush Limbaugh and Bil O'Rilley are real stand up Americans, 'eh?

I would also wager that he hates Will Rogers.

While Stewart is at the top of his game as a comedian, his success has more to do with the convergence of a wholly corrupt media and the BushCo empire than anyything else. His schtick, which he pulls of brilliantly, is to tell the truth in the face of the tsunami of lies, misdirection and deception that has become the hallmark of mainstream media.

In addition, I look at Joshua Goldberg as a very welcome participant in Democratic politics regardless of Kalin's idiotic ramblings. Goldberg is a just one of a tapestry of people from all walks of life that share the same desire to know the truth and do the right thing.

There is no logic here, other than twisted logic.

Can you still be a fan of The Daily Show?

Can you still be a leader of the Democratic Party?

(so sayeth the author of that article.)

Mr. Kalin writes that:

" Stewart's daily dose of political parody characterized by asinine alliteration leads to a ''holier than art thou" attitude toward our national leaders. People who possess the wit, intelligence, and self-awareness of viewers of ''The Daily Show" would never choose to enter the political fray full of ''buffoons and idiots." Content to remain perched atop their Olympian ivory towers, these bright leaders head straight for the private sector."

Hmmm... Couldn't it also be the case that politics-- the world of buffoons and idiots--

doesn't pay very well?

That there are not that many excellent entry-level positions in politics?

That politics takes money and a completely different skill set, beyond mere ideology?

That US politics nowadays is extremely partisan, money-grubbing, rough, corrupt and unpleasant?

By lampooning the worst of the worst of our politicians, Jon Stewart effectively calls for change. The more that spectacularly corrupt people like Tom DeLay are outed and, hopefully, defeated in elections, the more Jon Stewart's jokes address this last problem with the US political system.

And so Jon's show makes it MORE likely that someone like the fictional Mr. Goldberg will consider a career in a future political world that is, perhaps, kinder and gentler because of the joking.

Stewart, Maher, Colbert, Letterman, Hughley, Sykes, etc etc perform the same function as the folk singers did in the 60's and 70's. They get the message out, period. The comedians are the Message Bearers of the left today, just like the musicians were during the Vietnam/Civil Rights era.

Way back in the dark ages, when I listened exclusively to protest music, it didn't cause me to disdain participation in politics....it caused me to Get Political. They didn't perform their function "too well." These musicians and these comedians perform their function: wake up the sheeple, make them mad, make them political. Ba boom.

that perhaps the best and brightest aren't going into politics these days because the electoral process is owned, lock stock & barrel, by the corporate oligarchy? It's almost impossible to run for office these days unless you either sell your soul to the corporations or have private millions. The way our political campaigns are done these days, a candidate is expected to spend 90% of their time grubbing for money. The newspapers and pundits handicap a race based almost entirely on the amount of money a candidate raises. If you have a small campaign finance account, you're regarded as a joke.

I just finished a run for public office, and it's turned me into the world's biggest supporter of campaign finance reform. The best and the brightest don't want to spend an entire campaign calling strangers and grubbing for money and sucking up to corporate donors and PACs. To me, that was a degrading, humiliating, and borderline unethical process, and it's EXPECTED of a candidate. If you don't raise money from the PACs and corporate donors, a lot of political junkies won't give you their support or money, either. You can raise significant money with $10 and $25 private donations - I did - but unless you get those max donations from the PACs, the party organizations, and corporate donors, you just do not have the funds to get your message out to enough people to change the course of an election if your opponent, like mine, is a long-entrenched encumbent and is already rolling in campaign funds.

buffoons or corruption by the way our political system is set up. It just costs so much to run that you are always "campaigning". You learned it the hardest way.

I learned it as a child who hung around politicians because of my mom's work. I'd hang out when congress was in session and I wasn't in school. I was awed by the potential nobility of politics and would be baffled by some of the votes. When I'd ask congressmen I knew about their votes there weren't grand thoughts about the highest good behind them as I initially assumed. Maybe because I was so many years from voting they didn't pretend there was. It boiled down to party expectations and the money needed to run again. (And that was for state office, not national.)

I'm sure many start out with noble purposes but the reality of the expenses is a reality. Makes it hard to get your message out to break in and makes it hard to stay as independent as you might once you get in.

I laud you for your efforts and join you in supporting campaign finance reform. I have no idea what it should change in to, but our system helps create the problems we decry.

To wit:

Although Stewart's comedic shticks may thus earn him some laughs Sunday at the Oscars, his routine will certainly not match the impact of his greatest irony: Jon Stewart undermines any remaining earnestness that liberals in America might still possess.

Michael Kalin is a 2005 graduate of Harvard College.


*I rest my case :evilgrin:

:D

At least he didn't blame Clinton :eyes:

Appreciates Bush's "folksy solemnity." Except I don't. And neither do quite a few of my contemporaries.

This guy has a great future as a conservative pundit.

Mr. Kalin is lamenting the small number of progressive politicians and the reticence of so many people of ability and character to enter the political arena. He posits that part of the reason for the lack of progressive politicians is the fact that potential progressives (who make up nearly all of Stewart's audience) consider politics to be appropriate only for buffoons - an image reinforced by Jon Stewert's brand of comedy.

This article is not a slam against the content of The Daily Show, rather it is a lament over an unintended effect it has on the pool of progressive politicians.

Sinistrous

I don't think he's saying politics is for buffoons. He's just saying our government is currently run by buffoons. Which is hard to argue, and what makes him so funny.

I am happy to see you saw the same thing I did.

But it's a relaistic reaction: there really is no place in politics for an intelligent idealist. Any pol who makes past the school board level has to be compromising his principles to make money and win votes. That's just how it is. So some of us get cynical...what else is there?

I understand what you're saying. It's like.. well.. something you'd do in an undergrad paper you were writing at the last minute!

Whenever I see a complete buffoon holding local office I think, "Hey, if THAT idiot can get elected and hold office then I sure as hell can do it too!"

His premise is that in his very limited world experiences and his imaginary straw man friend can combine to prove The Daily Show undermines bringing progressives into the party.

Bull.

He needs to spend some years in politics before he tries to write about it. He has dreamed up some Tweetyesque nonsense, and it is nothing more than a wisp of smoke across his brain.

ANYTHING that helps people see the news in terms they can understand and absorb is useful. People who don't watch news watch the Daily Show.

The only thing this guy's article reveals is what kind of person he is. He's a fretter. He's a worrier. And that's all his article proves.

And Stewart (whom I love) does play into it by bashing belafonte, Sheehan, speakers at King funeral - and generally contributing to the debasing of politics in this country.

What the hell is she talking about?

Bush's "folksiness?" I didn't know that elite New England WASP frat boys could be "folksy". Or maybe "folksy" is supposed to offer an explanation as to why Bush talks like an idiot....

I disagree with the notion that Bush's style is so great that politicians of both parties should try to imitate it.

There are a heck of a lot of 20-something year olds who would make better leaders than many office holders I've met. One of the biggest problems in this nation is the habit older generations have of giving too much credibility and benefit of the doubt to crooked leaders. If John Stewart produces a generation of people who don't think everything a President or leader says is gospel then he will be giving us a much, much better nation. A populace that pays attention and doesn't respect authority is the greatest fear of the establishment.

The writers of this editorial are too old, too moronic and I'm smarter than them. ;)

"Watching liberal comedy will make you sanctimonious, snooty and disrespectful of authority." Sheesh.

seems to be blaming Stewart for the cynicism among young people regarding politics.

Hmmm, I don't think it was Stewart's fault that Cunningham took millions in bribes or that Tom Delay is responsible for money laundering, or that the entire GOP is extremely corrupt.

Stewart is not responsible for a culture of cynicism of politics. He simply exposes the system for whhat it is - a joke.

Overall, one of the dumbest things I've read in a while.

try to make a little sense. Or use that "with us or against us" stuff.

What you've done here is just embarrassing for the fascist base.

Now I've read it all!! Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are hurting the progressive cause?!

The author of that piece needs a serious dose of real life.

John stewert is Great. The Daily Show is great.

But the article does make a very good point. Rather than inspire people to action, the Daily Show represents a post-modern fatalism and cynicism that is dangerous.

It's not juist The Daily Show, and it's not relly new. It's a post-modern "Just Give Up and Laugh at it all" attitude accompanied the demise of liberalism and the rise of corporatism.

The problem is not with the Daily Show itself. But the fact that it ihas become so important reflects the notion that the system has become so corrupt and ridiculous, and people are such buffonish clowns that you might as well sell out and forget any notion of positive social change.

It's one to watch the Daily Show and get a few good bellylaughs as comic relief. But it's something different when it reflects a larger nihilism that only serves to allow the Status Quo Oligarchs to gain more and more at our expense.

I laugh at most of the show, but cringe when it feeds the "politicians are bad" chestnut. That allowed asshats like W or Bloomberg to run on: "I am not a politician, but a businessman - trust me".
It's noxious.

I tend to agree with what you wrote here:
The problem is not with the Daily Show itself. But the fact that it ihas become so important reflects the notion that the system has become so corrupt and ridiculous, and people are such buffonish clowns that you might as well sell out and forget any notion of positive social change.

But I'm just not certain it's anything new for comics and social commentators to be mercilessly skewering politicians.

Think of Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken and Will Rodgers, all of whom were every bit as influential in their day, and all of whom presented an extremely cynical (and very funny) view of politicians and politics.

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress. --Mark Twain

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself. --Mark Twain

If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner. --H.L. Mencken

A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground. --H. L. Mencken

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. --Will Rogers

A fool and his money are soon elected. --Will Rogers

It's easy being a humorist when you've got the whole government working for you. --Will Rogers

And finally, there's this:
Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke. --Will Rogers

So, it looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same. I do wonder, still, if our era is different somehow in the pervasiveness of media, how it is omnipresent, and so may have much more of an effect than in the past. I also wonder if the rise of what is called "youth culture" where the generations are separated more than previously, and the past is rejected more strenously, so for younger people there is less of a chance for parents or other adults to offer a balance. These sorts of things may mean Stewart may have more influence than comdians of the past (and there may be other modern social forces in play that I haven't thought of), but that's not Stewart's fault. Nor is the lack of critical thinking that it seems some of Stewart's audience displays, when they cite him as their main news source, is his fault. He's even joked about that himself.

I, personally, am a bit concerned about his tendency to paint arabs and Muslims in what seems like a pretty consistently negative way, as I think some in his audience may develop negative attitudes as a result, without being really conscious of it. But even so, I still really like Stewart; he's very funny and very smart.

I think if there is really a trend for fewer people to go into politics, it's probably more a result of the unbelieveable scrutiny and no-holds-barred attacks from opponents that candidates are subject to.

On edit: And I guess the tendency to skewer politicians predates the U.S.:
Under every stone lurks a politician. --Aristophanes

You're right that cynical satire has always had a place.

But today, I think the real probelm is the lack of a less cynicl counterpoint overall.

I'll admit that I'm a child of the 60's. Despite all of the faults of that generation, there was at least an underurrent of idealism nd a belief that we can do better and make constructive changes.

It used to be "hip" to care about things. But since then the cynical side overshdowed the idealism, so now it's hip to not care about anything.

It's also reflkected in the attitude of "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." Unfortunately, that attitude means we stick with the old bosses instead of at least trying to find something better.

I was struggling with that in my post, but I do think you're right in identifying a lack of idealism as being far more pronounced now.

The trend has been around for a while. The word "cool," for instance, as an indication of a desirable attitude of emotional detachment has been around since the time of the beats, in the 50s, and maybe before that. But it does seem that idealistic ideals have been neglected and disparaged now to a degree not seen before. But it really does seem that as you said, "...the cynical side overshdowed the idealism, so now it's hip to not care about anything."

It seems to me that this actually started in the 70s and 80s, with all the "me generation" and "looking out for number 1..." and "winning through intimidation..." books and articles, and a new social approval for anti-social narcissistic attitudes that wouldn't have been flaunted proudly in previous eras. And it's just been getting worse ever since. I wonder why it happened that way. Do you think it's a cyclical thing in some ways, so that we might expect a re-emergence of idealism soon?

The 70's and 80's were a period of stepping back from the turmoil and excesses of the 1960's. I remember when the mantra changed from "revolutionary change" to "working within the system" which morphed into "Greed is Good."

I actually read an interesting article a while back that traced the basic differenes in generations throughout the US history. It ws based on the notion that younger generations respond to -- and react against -- conditions created by older generations at the time.

It found that there have been fairly regular patterns of idealism, turmoil, retrenchment, conservatism and eventually a return to idealism. There were different sets of overriding values among different generations that also reflected this.

For example the freewheeling attitudes of the 1920s -- crash of the bubble that those excesses created -- caused the next generation to become much more sober and serious about life. Partly in reaction against the ecesses, and partly becaue they had to deal with the real-world results in the Great Depression and WW 2. (The group known as the Greatest Generation). They became mich more serious and responsible. Then, their children (the Baby Boomers) reacted against the excessive restraints of the culture created by the Greatest Generation, which caused the excesses and Rebeliousness of the 1960's....Which eventually led to repeat of the pattern.

I dunno where that puts us now. I hope that Post Modern Nihilism is not taking the place of what should be a restoration of idealism in those patterns. There are a lot of younger people are restoring a measure of idealism, so maybe the tables are turning again. I guess time will tell on that one.

I've read those sorts of theories too, about each generation's values being a reaction to those of the previous one's. But it's not just about actual political values, it seems to me, but also about the circumstances that one's generation experiences. So, for instance, the deprivations that the Greatest Generation experienced led them to want to over-protect and indulge their children, in recognition of the impact of their own times on them. So, that resulted in the "Me Generation," as the Greatest Generation's kids were really over-indulged, which led to selfishness. And there are also other sorts of sudden changes in circumstances, too, like war, that can lead to generational differences, which are also added to the mix of influential factors.

I wonder what proportion of DUers are in the "younger generation."

LOL, radioforprogressives! You must be about the same age that I am...doesn't it feel very weird to be talking about the "younger generation," just like older people talked about us, a few decades ago? I wonder if we are able to see clearly what is going on with them, any more than our parents generation could completely understand what was going on with us. I don't have kids myself, and I'm never quite certian if that means I can understand better or worse as a result.

And yet, in so many ways, it all stays the same, too.

..because he IS effective..?

(talk about over-thinking something... I think there's something in the water up there.)

it's subject matter... They are not in the business to lead or inspire us only to make us laugh... Some might say this is not good because we are placated, however I feel if we don't have a release, we might all have strokes... Sometimes you just got to look at the situation and laugh.

There's nothing wrong with satire and a good belly laugh.

However, the problem is that's all we've got these days. It seems like there is no middle-ground between nihilism and the status quo tor served up by the MSM.

Outlets like the alternative media and ventures like Air America are trying to offer something different. But unfoirtunately they havn't yet found that formula to go beyond preching to the choir.