|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 13, 2005 / 4 Nisan, 5765 Trying to have it both ways: Being serious turns Jon Stewart shrill and bitter By Patrick W. Gavin
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Sure, sure. Saying anything remotely
negative about "The Daily Show's"
Jon Stewart is the modern equivalent
of calling Gandhi a mute wimp in
need of steroids.
So lest I suffer the wrath of the 18-29-
year-old crowd (an age range that I am —
sadly — soon to leave) let me begin by
saying that, like you, I also heart Jon
Stewart. "The Daily Show" is the only
show I make a point to watch. I've been to
a live taping. I've paid to see his stand-up.
Hell, I even liked him as a veejay on MTV
back in the day.
As the "it" boy of the moment — as
of this month, two-time Peabody
Award-winning darling of the
news media — and the
poster boy for the disgruntled,
disaffected and disenfranchised
everywhere,
Stewart has enjoyed a long
run as America's de facto
voice of reason who
deftly and humorously
gets to the heart of the
day's news and decodes
the spin dolled
out by politicians and
journalists alike. For
many, he's a breath
of fresh air, worlds
apart from our country's
suffocating political
discourse.
Stewart's brand
of humor, wit and
sarcasm is both entertaining
and astute — a
rare combination. His
show has added a perspective
on civic life that provides
a much-needed ying
to the mainstream yang.
But as Stewart's popularity
has grown, so
too, unfortunately, has
his swagger, and he
now finds himself
straddling mainstream
respectability
and his traditional
role as class
clown.
His house of
cards fell apart
last fall, during
his infamous appearance
on CNN's
"Crossfire".
Stewart, seemingly
out of
nowhere,
erupted at
Crossfire's
then-hosts
Tucker
Carlson and
Paul Begala
for "hurting
America" with
their show's divisive,
combative and
partisan format.
The scene
caused more than a
double take. Here was the King of Satire,
the Court Jester, the Superman of Sarcasm
picking a fight over — serious journalism?
Who did this guy think he was
kidding?
Stewart's uncomfortable and acerbic
performance on "Crossfire" made it very
clear that Stewart wanted what no comedian
can ever have: to have this cake and
eat it, too.
Of course, it's not as if Stewart's criticism
didn't find its mark: "Crossfire" and
its brother and sister shows all over the
airwaves are sad examples of what passes
for debate today.
But to hear the criticism come out of
Stewart's mouth caused some headscratching
for many, since Stewart
hasn't exactly earned enough
street cred through his
half-hour comedy show
to permit him to
throw stones in the
glass houses of others.
Stewart's show
(albeit unintentionally,
I'm sure)
provides him
with a protective
shield that has
only served to
embolden his conceit.
Although he frequently
criticizes
other media outlets
for their lack of in-depth
reporting, Stewart's
half-hour show assures
him that he will
never have to dig
more than
inch-deep on any particular topic. In fact, if
anyone is guilty of simplicity, it is Stewart,
whose show consists largely of witty
sound bites and video clips taken, largely,
out of context.
Staying on Comedy Central, despite
countless offers from the networks, prevents
Stewart from having to face the real
barometer of mass appeal: the ratings
war. He can joke about his relatively small
audience, chalking it up to the fact (as he
did on "Crossfire") that, well, his lead-in
show features hand puppets making
prank phone calls.
The five minutes that Stewart leaves
for guest interviews makes it all but certain
that Stewart will never dish the probing
questions that he begs of other journalists.
Even when Stewart is fortunate
enough to get a major player on his couch
— such as John Kerry before the election
— his interviews are puffy and deferential.
Of course, none of this would matter if
Stewart would stay in the circus ring he
was put in — the ring
where all comedians stand and lob spitballs
at the powerful. That's the ring I
adore him in. Comedians shouldn't be
held to the same standards as mainstream
journalists.
But Stewart has wandered outside of it
with such regularity as to render him totally
mainstream (how terribly uncool)
and nearly overexposed. You may have
seen him on the covers of Rolling Stone,
TV Guide or Newsweek. Or raking in the
Emmy Awards. Or perhaps you saw the
profile "60 Minutes" did of him. And surely
you've seen his book — "America (The
Book)" — in every bookstore and hovering
safely on The New York Times bestseller
list for six months.
When Stewart walks out of the
comedic ring, doggonit, he's got something
to say! And he wants to be taken seriously!
Hello?!? Over here! People, I'm
being serious!
But he'll leave the door behind him ajar
so he can, when convenient, run back into
the ring to pronounce, "Oh man, I was
just joking."
It's nothing short of criticism without
responsibility, admonition without accountability.
What Stewart demands
of others, he fails to even attempt
himself.
By always wanting to have it
both ways — the
flexibility to
be taken
both seriously
and
lightly, as
the situation
may
warrant
— Stewart' s
blurred
his vantage
point as a
satirist
and, as a
result, his
comedic
drink has
become
slightly too
bitter.
This isn't
meant to
suggest that
"The Daily
Show" isn't a
great show: It is.
But Stewart should
remember that he is,
first and foremost, a comedian
on a comedy show. A
clown who lobs pies in the faces
of politicians is funny. A clown who
delivers weighty speeches on the
state of the media and then gets mad
when he gets egg on his face — well,
that's just sad.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Patrick W. Gavin is a writer living in Washington and contributor to The Washington Examiner. Comment by clicking here. © 2005, Patrick W. Gavin |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
