Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Slow-Pitch Softball with Evo
Apropos
my Wednesday anti-Jon Stewart
rant, the New York Times TVDecoder blog reports that
The Daily Show today launched a website independent of
Comedy Central which houses a massive archive of clips dating
back to when the show was funny (i.e. the Colbert years). CNN says
that "Videos of every skit, every joke and every guest are
available for free, fully searchable on TheDailyShow.com. According
to Comedy Central, 13,000 videos will be stored in the database."
(Will this include Craig Kilborn's stint as host?)
Featured on the front page of thedailyshow.com is Stewart's embarrassingly sycophantic interview with Bolivia's leftist President Evo Morales. Stewart, the scourge of American politicians, plays slow-pitch softball with at the divisive revolutionary leader: "You promised to nationalize resources and help distribute money to the poorer folk in Bolivia; convene a constitutional assembly and institute agrarian reform. You did that within eight months of your election!" And, of course, his trademark, "lets love one another" incoherence: "We have a tendency to group South American leaders. If you visit Castro, if you visit Chavez, then we all of the sudden, I think, get scared. So that understanding and dialogue is important for us to open up as well."
Stewart, mostly in serious interviewer mode, doesn't find time to ask about recent strikes in La Paz, the Cuban dissident illegally expelled from the country for criticizing Morales, or his controversial, Chavista-like statements about the private media. As The Economist recently observed, "Morales calls the media the 'main adversary' of his government and wants to hold them accountable to the people. On June 5th the judiciary staged a one-day strike to counter a presidential assault on its independence."
|10.19.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Can't find a link (what, my word isn't good enough?) but Comedy Central has said they are working on the Kilborn shows and they should be ready in the beginning of '08.
Episiarch|10.19.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Moynihan, I think that you are just trying to win reason's informal "my posts get all the comments" competition by putting up posts that you know will get joe all riled up.
Ryo|10.19.07 @ 3:17PM|#
A week or two later Stewart had on Vicente Fox, where Fox
proceeded to bash Morales. That interview is on their front page
too.
Stewart responded something to the effect of "See, you make a lot
of sense to me right now. When Morales was on, he made a lot of
sense..."
|10.19.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Episiarch,
Errr, maybe. But I was actually pretty stunned by that interview. I
mean, if Stewart doesn't take any cheap shots at a guy who
nationalizes industry at gunpoint, I've lost all faith in him. That
said, I still really enjoy the show, just not when he gets into Mr.
Serious Interviewer mode.
dewces|10.19.07 @ 3:24PM|#
This is stupid. Jon is not always the best interviewer because he tries to be respectful. Is Michael accusing Stewart of supporting socialist /authoritarian governments? You are not going to get guests if you are belligerent. Stewart has demonstrated his anti-establishment liberalism cred enough times.
PeeDub|10.19.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Does Stewart take cheap shots at *anyone* he has on the
show??
If anything, he's the anti Papa Bear, and given the choice, I'd
take him every time.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|10.19.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Kilborn was just like Stewart. Only relevant. And really funny.
Les|10.19.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Stewart, the scourge of American politicians...
This is getting really silly. Stewart is consistently sycophantic
with political leaders.
The fact that you don't point out Stewart's sycophantic interviews
with Pervez Musharraf and Henry Kissinger, both men (especially
Kissinger) guilty of crimes that make Morales' misdeeds seem minor
in comparison, is somewhat consistent with your tendency to attack
bad (or even merely annoying) behavior by leftists while ignoring
it when it comes from those on the right.
First today, Ms. Mangu-Ward finds time to write about the shallow
hypocrisy of a teenaged columnist, and now Mr. Moynihan reminds us
that he's really annoyed with a TV comedian who sometimes
gets to badly interview world leaders.
I really think there are subjects much more worthy of your
talents.
Seitz|10.19.07 @ 3:26PM|#
dating back to when the show was funny
Oh, c'mon. The Aasif Mandvi bit about the Armenian genocide last
week was freaking hilarious.
"Spain had it's Inquisition reduced to an informal Q&A. And
Britain has done more than enough to earn it's 'Boston
Misunderstanding'."
Episiarch|10.19.07 @ 3:27PM|#
I still really enjoy the show, just not when he gets into
Mr. Serious Interviewer mode
Of course not, because he is jettisoning the whole comedy concept
when he feels that the interview is "important". This marks him as
a shitty comic. Good comics do their thing in any situation, no
matter how they personally feel about it. That's part of what makes
Colbert so superior to Stewart.
Plus, I hate asslicking of any sort, and Stewart does it a lot.
|10.19.07 @ 3:28PM|#
"I really think there are subjects much more worthy of your
talents."
That is, as they say, a pipe dream.
|10.19.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Stewart, the scourge of American politicians, plays
slow-pitch softball with at the divisive revolutionary
leader
The scourge of American politicians? Moynihan, have you ever
watched a Daily Show episode? Or maybe looked over the transcripts
of his interviews with American politicians? How about those four
(at least) times he's interviewed McCain?
SPD|10.19.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Judging by that picture, those Menudo reunions are getting more and more depressing every year.
|10.19.07 @ 3:33PM|#
I just started watching the show again, after a number of years abroad so, in my defense, I haven't seen the interviews with Kissinger (who, I agree, deserves both barrels), etc. I have seen him be rougher on McCain (who also really, really deserves it...see Matt Welch's book and brilliant take down in the magazine), though. That said, I have been reading column after column on Stewart's influence on the American political debate and I am just a little baffled by it, to be honest. But the mob has spoken...no more Stewart posts.
|10.19.07 @ 3:34PM|#
I mean, if Stewart doesn't take any cheap shots at a guy who
nationalizes industry at gunpoint, I've lost all faith in
him.
Whereas not taking any cheap shots at a guy who cans Supreme Court
justices so he can stay in office (Musharrif) is just fine.
MattXIV|10.19.07 @ 3:37PM|#
The problem with when Stewart goes into "serious" mode is that criticism via humor is what he's good at. When you remove the satire all that is left is run of the mill moderately-well-thought-out liberalism combined with a bland and differential interview style that's no worse or better than the standard cable new talk show fare.
|10.19.07 @ 3:45PM|#
I suppose I should do a full audit of all his interviews. If you click on the dailyshow.com link, Morales is the first interview on the left. I didn't exactly go seeking it out. And it's not a left or right issue, as a mentioned in the piece the other day, though J.S. clearly tilts to the left and most of the people I have seen him rip were on the right...But then again, most all of them deserved it (i.e. Bill Kristol)
|10.19.07 @ 3:49PM|#
I think it says a lot about the current state of political
discourse in America when Jon Stewart gets the reputation of being
"embarrassingly sycophantic" because he is respectful towards those
he interviews.
Stewart's recent interview with Tony Snow was amazing to watch -
two guys with very different political stances getting along while
disagreeing? What?
|10.19.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Just remember - the insistence on jumping all over anybody who
doesn't immediately act like Castro was worse than a dozen Hitlers
is just a coincidence - it's not evidence that Reason tilts to the
NRO wing.
And Batista was like the George Washington of Cuba. Don't forget
that.
|10.19.07 @ 3:54PM|#
But the mob has spoken...no more Stewart posts.
Naah, Michael, feel free to take some more swings at Jon when he
takes himself too seriously, and forgets he's running a comedy
show, and that liberal politicians can also be jackasses who
deserve to be skewered -- that conservatives don't have a monopoly
on pandering and statism -- just space the rants out more sparsely,
mmm-kay?
|10.19.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Also worth noting is that the majority of Stewart's interviews are of people who are really just promoting their latest book or movie. So it's probably understood that Stewart is not going to be too hard on them.
|10.19.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I'm really excited by the Kilborn news. Daily Show was actually pretty funny back then. Especially the correspondents. The Joycelyn Elders interview the chick correspondent did was classic. Can't wait to see it again.
|10.19.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Count me among those who isn't really seeing the point of this
anti-Stewart forced contrarianism. He's always been a late-night
talk show host. He's always been fairly affable and
non-confrontational (and funny). Taking him to task for this is
just feels beside the point.
It is true that Stewart is a source of huge media fascination, and
possibly true that he has some influence on national political
discourse. But this has never had anything to do with his sharp
style or willingness to speak truth to power.
Rather, it's because he frequently tweaks the obvious vapidity of
the supposedly serious media outlets, and because he is generally
pretty good at calling out obvious bullshit. If you look at his
shining moment -- the interview with Tucker Carlson -- all he did
was point out that Carlson is a pompous dick. Which was totally
fucking awesome.
In fact, Colbert's routine is very much of a piece with Stewart's,
although they obviously have different schticks. And if you read
articles where they're interviewed together, it's clear that they
fire on the same cylinders.
So, um, yeah, Jon Stewart is not the second coming of Edward
Murrow. Roger that.
|10.19.07 @ 4:36PM|#
It's really just as well that he didn't do hardball because Jon Stewart does an awful job at hardball. Even when trying to be tough he gives wide openings, and covers a too broad range of topics without giving enough pressure on any of them to force the interviewee off their talking points. When he interviewed Tony Snow last week, it seemed like he was actually unaware that Snow would be prepared for the questions he asked. Small wonder he became a talk show host and not a prosecuting attorney.
stephen the goldberger|10.19.07 @ 5:21PM|#
People watch the daily show for comedy not hard hitting news journalism. Sure every so often Stewart puts on a newsman's mask but give him a break. He's just trying to get laughs.
Edward|10.19.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Of course, Jon Stewart will never have the opportunity to do hardball with a governing libertarian because Libertopia doesn't exist, and libertarianism on any scale that might implicate libertarians in actual failures has never been tried. He could do hardball with some keener libertarian fanatic like Ron Paul, but there wouldn't be much point. Ron Paul has never had to take responsibility for actually implementing any of his more radical policy prescriptions. It's easy to have clean hands if you never manage do fuckall except spout off.
|10.19.07 @ 5:48PM|#
It's easy to have clean hands if you never manage do fuckall
except spout off.
I'm guessing Edward has some very clean hands...
Paul|10.19.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Dewces:
Stewart has demonstrated his anti-establishment liberalism cred
enough times.
Remember, anti-establishmentarianism and anti-authoritarianism are
two very different things. We know lefties and liberals are all
anti-establishment, but what they're not is anti-authoritarian. The
latter is the exclusive domain of libertarians.
|10.19.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Does anyone remember his interview with Jennifer Love Hewitt
when Garfield the Movie came out?
He bashed her far worse than he did Kristol or Matthews. While he
is respectful to John McCain and John Kerry even when the show has
bits making fun of them. He disagrees with Tony Snow, yet the two
had a cordial interview.
My point? From the interviews I've seen, he gets frustrated with
the pundit class because he feels like they can see through the
spin and the crap just as well as he can yet they seem to pretend
that they don't. Politicians and their flacks are expected to
pander, while the media is supposed to help us see through it, not
just point to both arguments and say "here's both sides, figure it
out".
Or in the case of Chris Matthews, "here I am in the middle of an
Ann Coulter and Fred Thompson sandwich. Figure out who I find
sexier."
|10.19.07 @ 7:30PM|#
When Morales was on the show he used a translator, so it took longer for him to communicate and Stewart seemed to conduct the interview in such a manner as to maximize Morales's time to talk. (After all, it's not often the show gets world leaders.) I don't think Stewart wouldn't have been hostile even if Morales hadn't used a translator, but don't mistake being accommodating and polite for being "embarrassingly sycophantic."
|10.19.07 @ 8:01PM|#
Ashish George -- I'm not sure whether Stewart was kissing ass
with Morales or whether he's so liberal that he couldn't decode
such phrases as "agricultural reform" for what it really means --
"stealing private property and distributing it to your political
supporters under the pretense of justice". I frankly think it was
the latter -- Stewart is so liberal that he can't even imagine the
hard questions that he ought to be asking.
I don't think politeness is synonymous with "failing to ask tough
questions using a courteous tone of voice and body language".
|10.19.07 @ 8:06PM|#
libertarianism on any scale that might implicate
libertarians in actual failures has never been tried.
Dunno, seems like the libertarian move to abolish the draft has
worked out fantastically well. Seems like every move to implement a
sliver of a truly libertarian agenda has worked out well, which
implies we ought to do even more of that. Anyone want to try giving
a counterexample of an unambiguously libertarian idea that was
tried and failed because it wasn't workable?
|10.19.07 @ 10:44PM|#
|10.19.07 @ 10:46PM|#
|10.19.07 @ 10:53PM|#
|10.19.07 @ 10:55PM|#
|10.20.07 @ 1:22AM|#
|10.20.07 @ 1:28AM|#
|10.20.07 @ 8:21AM|#
|10.20.07 @ 8:26AM|#
|10.20.07 @ 8:26AM|#
|10.20.07 @ 8:31AM|#
|10.20.07 @ 8:47AM|#
|10.21.07 @ 5:08AM|#
Seitz said: "Oh, c'mon. The Aasif Mandvi bit about the Armenian
genocide last week was freaking hilarious..."
Hear, hear!
Stewart blows goats|10.21.07 @ 5:22PM|#
"...the interview with Tucker Carlson -- all he did was point
out that Carlson is a pompous dick. Which was totally fucking
awesome.'
Actually, I think Stewart was looking in the mirror at the
time.
This thread proves exactly what critics of Stewart's painfully
unfunny show have been saying all along: he's an irrelevant,
overrated asshole. His defenders always claim he is so
indispensable because he is not afraid to criticize politicians and
speak the truth, no matter what. But as soon as people call him on
his sickening ass-kissing, of a socialist goon no less, his
defenders immediately claim he is only a comedian. You can't have
it both ways. Either he is a fearless purveyor of truth, or he is a
kiss-ass comedian. Which one is it?
Stewart blows goats|10.21.07 @ 5:24PM|#
"We know lefties and liberals are all anti-establishment"
What fucking bizarro world are you living in?
|10.21.07 @ 8:18PM|#
Of course Morales is a revolutionary. That is what Bolivia needs. It goes way beyond left vs right, socialism vs capitalism. This is about Indians, the MAJORITY, taking back what was stolen from them 400 years ago. It is finally their time. So butt out!
Dave T|10.22.07 @ 11:28AM|#
I think you guys are being a little too hard on Jon Stewart...
he has been consistently funny and made a lot of valid criticism of
American politicians and media figures.
That said, I think he's in over his head when he has foreign
leaders on his show and I don't really expect him to be well versed
enough on their politics to be able to ask the right questions...
and he really should just avoid having them on as guests all
together.
The interview with Morales was uncomfortable and pointless.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245