Okay. So an obligatory caveat -- this is a New York Times op-ed, which means it has a tiny amount of space to make its point and is strong on a general idea while being weak on support.
That said, I agree completely with what the author is getting at. In fact, I wrote this op-ed a while back in some hubski comments. (And better, if I can indulge for a second. I can't? Eh.)
Jon Stewart wasted an opportunity. Essentially every progressive in the entire country was aware of him for over a decade, and what do we have to show for it? A caricature. I don't mind the hagiographic statuses and blog posts this week -- Stewart was an entertainment fixture forever and justifiably so; he's pretty funny. But they are, as ever, praising him for the wrong thing. He did nearly as much to drive a wedge into the political spectrum as his opposite numbers on Fox News did. From personal experience, he destroyed the open-mindedness and critical thinking skills of an entire generation of liberals. Some hyperbole, sadly not enough.
No, this is fucking idiotic. The wedge between the left and right has everything to do with the bat shit crazy antics of Republicans, and nothing to do with the modestly conservative alternative that we call "liberals" in the US. Every conservative wants us to see some "middle ground" or some other nonsense. No. Donald Trump is a fucking joke, and the GOP is a joke. A terrible one. This isn't liberal bias, these people are fucking insane. They'd be the Neo-Nazi party anywhere in Europe. Look at what these monkeys are running on, from their own mouths: - Expanding the NSA
- Build a big wall at the border
- Outlaw abortion
- War in Iran
- War in Iraq
- War in Syria
And guess what the economic plan will be? Yeah, why bother have them say it, we already know. Stop demanding respect that isn't deserved; the GOP and American conservatism have earned the disdain which they get. Period. Liberals don't need to come half way to the side of idiocy, racism, and war-mongering; we need to tell these people to fuck right off.
I don't think it's necessary to tell people when you've blocked them. All it does is get one little jab in, and it's to tell them you're not going to listen to their response. This normalizes the "shots fired" that signal beginning of flame wars, and it's a slippery slope from that to the degeneration of thoughtful discourse site-wide. But for the record, I already had him filtered, too. :P
mk can there be a way to see hidden text on mobile?
mk forwardslash we could bind an ontap event to blacked out text that would make it normal colored again...
Oh, oops, I sort of misread your previous comment. In the past mutes have been followed by tedious messages asking for specification. It provides a guideline for those users willing to modify their behavior -- don't act like you did on that comment where you got muted. Of course, hubski being not what it once was, his terrible comment was also shared 8+ times. Well-kept gardens...
God damn, I think it's just really sad that we've put all this onus on a comedian. "His claims to be objective fell flat", what claims?! He's always been a liberal comedian with a hefty bias. He's not some news man who needs to be objective, he's a comedian! And I don't think he can be blamed for a generation of mindless, non-critical thinking liberals. He was funny, and often held a mirror up to hypocrisy while saying, "This shit is messed up" which is pretty par for the course for a comedian. That his audience didn't go further isn't a mark on him, and that others expected him to make his audience go further is more a mark on the general state of our media.And Mr. Stewart, who signed off from “The Daily Show” on Thursday, was more qualified than anybody to puncture this particular pretension. He trained his liberal-leaning audience to mock hypocrisy, incoherence and stupidity, and could have nudged them to see the planks in their own eyes, too. Instead, he cultivated their intellectual smugness by personifying it.
I agree. To whatever extent he embraced and played to his audience, as a profit-motivated individual/brand he can't be blamed. However, I think Stewart left true 'comedian' territory a long time ago. In some ways he's closer to a standard-bearer or a figurehead or what have you, to a certain type of person.
Yeah. My immediate thought is, if you were to look for a modern-day equivalent, there isn't one per se but Stewart and Colbert are along the same lines. EDIT: The modern-day equivalent is probably something more like the editorial board of the Times.
It's weird that this article discusses "liberal smugness," like this camp isn't filled to the brim with smugness in and of itself. Because it's literally the smuggest shit on the planet when a Black kid gets shot by a cop for some bullshit, said cop gets away with it, I'm mad about it, and the comment I get is "well hang on, let's not JUMP to conclusions or anything, I'm sure there was good reason he got away with it scott-free." Fuck, was that the smuggest, "I am a White guy that has no idea what the fuck I'm talking about" comment I've ever received. And let me tell you, I've received a lot. It was like, "let me play 'devil's advocate' on a controversial subject that has nothing to do with me" smug. SO. FUCKING. SMUG. I can't remember who posted it, though. ... Aww shit, yeah I can.
I'm drunk. mk's garage is full of beer. Take this with a grain of salt.But they are, as ever, praising him for the wrong thing. He did nearly as much to drive a wedge into the political spectrum as his opposite numbers on Fox News did. From personal experience, he destroyed the open-mindedness and critical thinking skills of an entire generation of liberals. Some hyperbole, sadly not enough.
I don't agree. I don't watch FOX or MSNBC, but when I can I will watch the Daily Show, which admittedly is about once a month. Still, I enjoy watching it. I've seen him be a pretty equal opportunity employer of comedy. He gives shit to both sides, don't you think? What the idiots that receive his comedy do with it is beyond his control.
Equally? I've gotten this from a lot of different people. I'm not sure how it's possible to believe it; I expected counterpoints but not this particular idea. I mean, even if you disagree with my previous comments, we can all agree that Stewart is a liberal and his show is left-leaning. I thought.He gives shit to both sides, don't you think?
He has made a living of pointing out the absurd. Are both sides equally absurd? As for him giving the Dems shit, this was a particular favourite.
Sorry, it's biased and smug to have an opinion on a major national issue now?His claims to be objective fell flat. For instance, Mr. Stewart denied being in President Obama’s corner by re-airing a clip in which he had made fun of the Obamacare website’s rollout, as if that was the same as questioning Obamacare itself.
I can't really agree with you or the NYT op-ed. It seems your criticism is that young liberals (the ones you've met/associate with, anyway) are numbskulls who can only parrot whatever Stewart feed them. First, I don't think you can generalize that to the entirety of young liberals or to the entirety of the Daily Show's viewership. Second, if all that Jon managed to accomplish was bring some basic awareness of really fucked up or moronic policies and maybe got some otherwise apathetic young liberals to donate or volunteer or vote for something, then he's been a resounding success. You (to perhaps a lesser degree), and the NYT op-ed, also seem to be fond of the "same-thing both sides" line of rhetoric (your bit about "nearly as much to drive a wedge" and basically the whole false-equivalence tone of the NYT article). This makes the really dangerous assumption that the young liberal crowd is somehow as extreme as the far-right, or that Stewart has been as misleading as right-wing propaganda. Young liberals, however knowledgeable they are or aren't on a particular issue, aren't pushing for anything that ought to be construed as politically extreme- no expropriation of private enterprise or property, no peace accords with ISIS, or anything else that would be out there on a political spectrum. Meanwhile, conservatives have been all about blocking marriage rights, defunding planned parenthood, privatizing social safety nets, revising (and whitewashing) history, entering more wars, etc- ideas that really can't go much further right. Same with Stewart- he might oversimplify or resort to soundbites, but he never deliberately misleads for political purposes, and doesn't claim to be fair and balanced while doing his thing. Is Jon "driving a wedge" because he has a smarmy, humorous approach when discussing things like "hey, not letting gay people get married is pretty messed up and has no constitutional basis" or "gee, politician X really changes his lines of argument when convenient" or "y'know, people blocking healthcare for 9/11 responders, an issue that should be a political win-win for everyone, is fucking absurd"? Do we want to equivocate this kind of wedge-driving with rhetoric like "after they finish AP US History, they're ready to sign up for ISIS" or "the Mexicans coming over the border are rapists" or "you're either with us, or you're against us"?
I'm not sure if it's what this article describes, or other things as well, that's lead me to just kind of ignore the Daily Show for the past few years as I felt it wasn't that great at promoting liberal ideas, or even making me laugh at opposing opinions I found ridiculous. I guess this makes me a bit happy that John Oliver got his own show instead of taking over. The freedom he gets on HBO has led to me discovering issues I didn't even know were issues, and has made me incredibly more supportive of movements I didn't care to understand before. I can't think of any time the Daily Show really did that for me, but maybe that wasn't the point. Maybe it really was just to be smug and laugh at the opposition. Sometimes comedy is helpful for frustrated people who can't bring the change they want. But it's hyperbole, I think, to say he spoiled a generation of liberals. I don't see people acting anymore smug about their opinions among liberals than I do amongst conservatives. Albeit, they're both often incredibly smug, but I don't think this is far from the norm. Politically minded people will often be very convinced of their opinions, and as a result will easily think themselves smarter than those who disagree.
I really couldn't agree more. He had an opportunity that he seems to have overlooked in favor of his own flavor of partisan hackery. That said, as Stewart himself said, he's not a serious news host, he's a comedian doing a comedy news show. The Daily Show isn't primarily there to deliver news, it's there to be a comedy show. A comedy show on television needs to do exactly two things. It needs to make people laugh, but that's mostly a consideration of genre. The primary purpose is to sell advertising slots to a coherent demographic so they can be targeted by relevant advertisers. Liberal partisan hackery makes a lot of sense when you're trying to target the liberal college students and twenty somethings who make up the show's primary demographic. That may have more to do with Comedy Central than with Jon Stewart, but I'd be surprised if the staunchly liberal stance if the show had nothing at all to do with marketing.
As a comedy show, the Daily Show was excellent. Frequently funny. He and Colbert particularly had a rare chemistry. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that a lot of his viewership watched him to engage in the Yudkowsky sneer club more than they did to be entertained, and certainly more than they did to learn. It is always difficult to draw conclusions about political comedy for this reason.