“And Now Your Moment of Zen”: The Cultural Significance of ‘The Daily Show’

Page 1 of 2      Go to:  1 2 >      Next page: The tiff began back in mid-March...

[7 August 2009]

The Daily Show is an intellectual respite from the self-aggrandizing sensationalism of traditional news sources, and as such, one can’t help but cringe a little at the idea that it, too, may have begun to take itself a bit too seriously.

By Jeremy Griffin

When Jon Stewart took as over as host of The Daily Show in 1999, displacing then-host Craig Kilborn, the show was little more than a modestly amusing satire program modeled loosely after SNL’s “Weekend Update” sketch: good-natured celebrity-bashing, a healthy dose of political lampooning. Today, the show is a potent cultural institution, boasting one of the largest viewerships in modern history for a cable program.

The Daily Show‘s influence over voter perceptions has been well documented—a 2006 study by East Carolina State found that Daily Show viewers, while considerably cynical of the electoral system, demonstrated a higher degree of interest in politics as a whole. Of course, Stewart, who now serves as managing editor of the program, dismisses such stats as irrelevant, arguing that the sole purpose of the program is entertainment, and as such, it has no obligation to be “fair” in the same way that real news programs do. By its own logic, The Daily Show has insulated itself from attacks of journalistic bias by virtue of the fact that it is a comedy show, and therefore free of the rhetorical constraints that underpin “serious” journalism—an entity it regards with a healthy degree of skepticism.

But Stewart’s March 12 interview with Mad Money’s Jim Cramer leads one to wonder whether or not the show’s sense of humor might be slipping, which could leave many viewers feeling alienated.  Given the scope of the program’s influence, it’s not a stretch to imagine the repercussions of this extending into the political sphere.

Stewart had already made a career as a comic and had enjoyed a few stints on several short-lived MTV programs before taking Kilborn’s place, and so it was little surprise that he excelled in the capacity as host. He was quick-witted, self-deprecating, and undeniably likable. But it wasn’t until the 2000 presidential elections that the full scope of his political wit became apparent. Stewart and his team of farcical news commentators, including soon-to-be comedy icons Steve Carrell and Stephen Colbert, worked diligently to highlight the inherent absurdity of the election process—exemplified in that case by the Florida ballot debacle, which provided nearly a season’s worth of material for the show’s writers. The cast’s sarcastic portrayal of themselves as “real” journalists underscored the twisted relationship between politics and media in America—the result of which, ironically, was that viewers began to regard the show as an actual news program.

By 2004, more young people (18-29) were turning to the show as their primary source for news. With a growing guest roster of authors, political analysts, and upper-echelon Washington elites, it was clear that the show was becoming something more than just a comedy program. People were no longer watching it simply because it was funny; they were watching it because it was important.

This was also the year of Stewart’s now-infamous guest appearance on CNN’s Crossfire. Presumably, hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala had hoped that having a comedian on might take some of the edge off the customarily turgid program. Instead, Stewart blistered the two men, whom he referred to as “partisan hacks,” for furthering the growing ideological divide between political parties and thus serving the interests of the Washington elite and not those of American voters. Carlson, clearly incensed by Stewart’s remarks, claimed that he thought Stewart had come on the show to be funny. “Oh, no no,” Stewart replied dryly. “I’m not your monkey.”

The show’s coverage of the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry solidified Stewart’s reputation as a savvy cultural critic, but more importantly, it offered a clear demonstration of comedy’s efficacy as an instrument of rhetorical analysis. Says Robert J. Thompson, Director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University: “Actually, when it’s done well, comedy in this country can become a counterbalance to journalism, like journalism is a counterbalance to government.” 

To be sure, humor is what it is because it’s rooted in some larger complex truth. Jokes are a palatable way of examining those things about ourselves, either culturally or individually, that may otherwise not be so easy to stomach. A successful joke operates as a kind of reductio ad absurdum, highlighting the deceptively large gap between language and meaning.

Of course, by definition, a counterbalance acts in opposition to its subject, and so in order to be an effective instrument of rhetoric, comedy must often maintain a certain degree of distance between itself and ideology. This is not to say that a comic must regard all ideologies with the same degree of cynicism, but it is important to keep in mind that mistrust of one ideology or set of ideologies does not necessarily entail an endorsement of its opposite. When comedy begins endorsing particular views, it often degenerates into propaganda, as evidenced by FOX’s short-lived fake news program The ½ Hour News Hour. Arguably a response to The Daily Show, the program made no effort to hide its Republican leanings, crafting the majority of its jokes as passive-aggressive jabs at Democrats, featuring such guest commentators as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Of course, anyone with a moderate understanding of irony can tell you that the reason a show like The ½ Hour News Hour doesn’t work is because, in a way, we already know the punchlines before they arrive. It makes no attempt to disguise the fact that it functions on behalf of one side of the political spectrum, and so it operates as little more than poorly-crafted political propaganda. There’s never any larger truth underpinning the gags, and thus no incentive for viewers to invest on an intellectual level.

That FOX even believed a response to The Daily Show was necessary indicates its having mistaken the show’s mistrust of conservativism as an open endorsement of liberalism. And while it is true that The Daily Show did support Barack Obama in the 2008 election, and that it tends to be more critical of Republicans than Democrats, this certainly does not mean that it fully endorses the Left. In fact, as Michiko Kakutani pointed out in her 2008 New York Times interview with Stewart, The Daily Show is largely characterized by its cynicism toward all ideologies, not just those of a Republican bent.

By this measure, it seems that The Daily Show has become its own sort of counterbalance to the major news networks, which it perceives as having forsaken the quest for truth, functioning instead as vehicles for political and corporate gain—an attitude best exemplified by the much-YouTubed skirmish between Stewart and Jim Cramer.

Page 1 of 2      Go to:  1 2 >      Next page: The tiff began back in mid-March...
 
Bookmark and Share
Share

Comments

As the show became more self aware and intelligent, fans, among them many young people and college students came to view it as a political outlet with integrity.

With that responsibility, I also believe the show chose to evolve. Having opinions now and then does not mean they lose their integrity and become like the myopic O’Reillys, and Becks, but more or less it means they do respect the integrity of their viewership.

Also, it’s quite evident they are not abandoning their original ideology to be a counter to the saturated sensationalist media monster of today. I personally find it that common sense and intellect play a huge role in the perception of the show. Does one really believe that because Stewart disagrees with what is inherently wrong, the show is becoming what it fought all these years? Come on.

Comment by Daniel N. from NYC — August 7, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

“It’s worth pointing out that the show’s viewers are already statistically less inclined to vote than viewers of other news programs.”

Please remove this from the article unless you have actual causal evidence. To do otherwise is a sin against statistics. Given that the viewership of The Daily Show is primarily young, and that the young traditionally vote far less than the median, you would need to show that The Daily Show’s audience is less likely to vote THAN THEIR PEERS instead of the general population. Correlation does not imply causation, and Occam’s razor certainly applies here as elsewhere.

Comment by Anonymoose — August 8, 2009 @ 5:33 am

Have to agree with Daniel N…the Daily Show’s comedy isn’t in opposition to “ideologies,” it’s in opposition to B.S. That’s why everyone responded to the show after Stewart took over, and why everyone responded so much to the Crossfire appearance.  The show’s use of clips from CSPAN to call politicians, media, whoever on their B.S. is both the source of its comedy and the source of its political efficacy.

Now, it may be a valid argument to say that at some point the Cramer interview ceased to be *comedy.*  That might be true.  But it’s hardly the case that to be “involved in media squabbles” is to be irresponsible to its audience.  The Daily Show’s audience likes the show because IT DOES call the media/politicians on its B.S.  That’s its raison d etre.

Comment by Michael — August 9, 2009 @ 11:04 am

This article makes assertions that it doesn’t substatiate.

Jon Stewart uses common sense and intelligence to ask questions that true journalist don’t ask anymore.  Amidst a sea of reporting where presenting both sides of an story as equally valid, even when one side is regugitating absolute crap, I find Stewart’s directness refreshing.  Just watch his interview of Bill Kristol recently to see how interviews should be conducted.

I, for one, will keep watching.

Comment by Connie from LA, CA — August 9, 2009 @ 11:13 am

I think this article definitely raises substantial questions about the Daily Show’s cultural role.  As the author points out, the on air personalities of the show do take pains to pronounce the limitations of their medium and, perhaps, over-apologize the moments when their self-righteous anger is overcompensated for.  However, the Crossfire and Cramer incidents seem exceptional in that they offer critiques that are unavailable anywhere but comedy (and TDS and Colbert in particular) in televised media- criticisms of the impotency of compromised media itself (represented by Carlson and Begala) and criticism of the fundamentals of late era capitalism (represented by Cramer)which uses compromised media to reinforce the beneficiaries of its own social hierarchies.

Comment by Timothy Gabriele from philadelphia — August 9, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

what u say about Stewart following into line behind other pundits is a fear i share as well. Hes become something of a symbol to me. Someone anyone from any party could laugh with. To see him follow other idiots and wade into the mirky battles of party lines would break my heart…

Comment by Kite23 from Texas — August 11, 2009 @ 12:25 am

I don’t fear that Jon Stewart will become a mere pundit; although I do miss the some of the more comical parts of the show, such as This Week In G-d, his interviews have maintained a certain level of real beauty and respect. 

Even so, I’m sure, between him and Colbert, someone will be inspired enough to take the reigns if either should start giving slack.

Comment by Susan from Joysey — August 11, 2009 @ 10:24 am

This article fails to realize that The Daily Show doesn’t have a political agenda. The show did not evolve to attend to its liberal, young audience. It became what it is because, and it has been said before, it echoes Jon Stewart’s voice.

The fact that Jon Stewart is a liberal explains the leaning of the show’s content (and, consequently, audience). But it is clear that Stewart is not pushing the Left’s agenda, he’s pushing the catharsis of his own emotional distress (and, of course, of the like-minded writers of the show).

It just happens that sometimes this process becomes so personal and intense that he leaves his role of comedian behind and comes out naked (with only his beliefs and emotions). We can see it during Cramer’s interview, and we can see it on the opening show after September 11. The clash between Stewart’s feelings and his screen character jokes shows even in typical segments like his (August 11) Andy Cohen’s joke ammended with a low “I’m sure he’s fine”.

So to answer one of your questions: there’s no (political) overall mission. But the interview did have a purpose: to voice the indignation against the carelessness and irresponsibility of the “economic gurus/institutions” that manipulate the market. It is truly a shame that it had to be channeled through Cramer’s persona. and I’m sure that Stewart hates when he gets that much out of character, but I commend his ever lasting sincerity.

Comment by Guilherme — August 14, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

What strikes me most about this post is its culturally imperialist tone. You might be worried that Stewart is at risk of stepping ouside the boundaries you want to define for him but its really not clear why anyone else should care.

Comment by Jan from Sydney — August 16, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

Even though it’s pretty clear the Daily Show endorsed Obama (so did I), it’s not like Jon was Chris Matthews. 

Jon also shook his head at the cable news networks trying to find out what Sasha and Malia’s lunch menu would be.  And he certainly hasn’t agreed with everything Obama has said.

Hey, Meghan McCain is a staunch conservative, but she doesn’t even like half the stuff her own father did in his campaign.  That’s why people like her.  Because she’s honest about her decisions, even if you disagree.

Jon doesn’t make fun of people simply because he disagrees.  He makes fun of them because they don’t make any sense.  Bill Kristol said the government couldn’t run anything, and then said private insurance companies couldn’t compete with a public option.  Glenn Beck calls the president a racist, and then says he “doesn’t hate white people.”

It’s not about politics.  It’s about comedy.

Comment by J — August 17, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

I make a point to sit down weekday mornings with Nik (my 13 yo homeschooled son) and watch Jon & Steven. By providing a healthy point of balance in a world awash in craziness, they make an excellent jumping-off point for discussions about politics, world affairs & should Dad cut his hair like Stephen?

Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they go too far. Wow! Does that mean they’re human? Walking that edge is one of the reasons I respect them & see them as good roll models for my kid.

I should point out that Nik is also addicted to NPR & the BBC. We do not get all our news from Jon & Stephen; how can you understand all the humor without knowing the context?

I must give them credit for something very important. They have inspired my son, who has a mongo IQ but a writing learning disability) to start a blog; he wants to do contextual & ironic comparisons of various news outlets. Yesterday he was checking out the Fox NN website. His comment? “Mom, this looks just like The Onion!” Good boy.

Comment by Dragonmum from North Carolina — August 18, 2009 @ 8:32 am

I can see it is all the wonderfully indoctrinated 18 to 20 year olds who frequent this site. The ones who think of Che Guevara as a cultural icon. John Stewart is a left leaning idiot who like other liberals attacks anyone who does not completely agree with him.

Comment by Richard Rhodes — August 20, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

For all the complaining people do about Jon Stewart’s show, it does have a legitimate reason d’etre other than comedy and entertainment: He calls politicians out on their BS! Yes, sometimes it’s over the line and sometimes it picks on one side, but that’s the way entertainment (including all the “legitamate” news shows) works.

At the end of the day, we the people should expect and demand shows that don’t take politicians or anybody’s word as gospel as is done on MSNBC and FOX. In his crossfire interview, Jon Stewart tells those guys that they should be doing is not staking out one side or the other but taking their guests to task, whatever they say. Hello, people, that is what we want right?!

Comment by Peter DiPrinzio from New York, NY — August 20, 2009 @ 10:31 pm

Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they go too far. Wow! Does that mean they’re human? Walking that edge is one of the reasons I respect them & see them as good roll models for my kid.

Yes, I think Jon is a good role model. With Stephen you should be aware that he is playing a role.

What strikes me about this article is that the author does not once say anything about Jon just saying what left-leaning intellectuals think. The questions he asks, the arguments he makes are the ones his audience wonders about. And they are tested out against the interviewees’ arguments. Sometimes the other side is stronger but very often the conservative side is told that what they think is B.S.
Sometimes Jon even calls left wingers out on their B.S.
What definitely has come true is Jon’s remark on Crossfire about it being harder to make jokes onthe government when they are less ridiculous than the Bush Admin. But Jon shows again and again that the crazyness goes on outside government but inside the same party.

Comment by Klaas from Germany — August 21, 2009 @ 3:23 am

The comments of Richard Rhodes illustrate the importance of shows such as TDS and the cultural miasma to which they respond (sometimes futilely).  Mr. Rhodes writes:

“I can see it is all the wonderfully indoctrinated 18 to 20 year olds who frequent this site. The ones who think of Che Guevara as a cultural icon. John Stewart is a left leaning idiot who like other liberals attacks anyone who does not completely agree with him.”

Rather than offering a careful opinion on the subject at hand—the cultural influence/significance of TDS—he attacks his imagined opponents (“liberals” and their lackeys) not with trenchant critique or a counter-argument, but with a simple series of ad hominem attacks.  He implies that those who enjoy the show must be a) young (and therefore naive?) and b) brainwashed and love Che (rather a non sequitur).  While he mischaracterizes much of TDS audience (clearly from the personal information rendered in the above comments, many of the participants here are not 18-20), this attempt to immune viewers for their age or to infantilize them adds nothing to the argument except perhaps, in his mind, to establish Mr. Rhodes’ sense of superiority. 

The second attack gets at just how little Mr. Rhodes understands about TDS and illustrates exactly what the show fights against in general.  There are, of course, individuals who romanticize Che Guevara and hold him up as an icon without perhaps understanding or choosing to ignore the brutal consequences of some of Guevara’s actions.  TDS, of course, takes pains to lampoon this sort of naïveté.  A friend has a t-shirt with the iconic Che picture and a caption under it that says “I don’t even know who this is.”  That is the sort of ironic humor TDS uses to call its targets and audience on their unexamined hypocrisies or ideological positions.  That Mr. Rhodes both misses the irony of his attack and resorts to partisan name-calling to dismiss anyone with whom he disagrees demonstrates that his argument against Mr. Stewart can only really apply to commentators like himself.  The further fact that the article at hand demonstrates that people like Bill Kristol (someone that Mr. Stewart presumably disagrees with given Mr. Rhodes’ characterization of Mr. Stewart as a “left-leaning idiot”) acknowledges that Mr. Stewart is “smart” and “doesn’t take cheap shots” makes Mr. Rhodes appear to be a poor reader and foolishly partisan—and as such, precisely the target of TDS.  So Mr. Rhodes is right to imagine Mr. Stewart as his “enemy,” but not on the grounds Mr. Rhodes suggests.

Comment by Tad Davies from Providence, RI — August 21, 2009 @ 9:56 am

Klass, Of course we understand Stephen is playing a role - the satire is great! His ability to create such a pseudo-conservative character makes him a dedicated actor & thus worthy of admiration (at least by us “indoctrinated” ones.) Plus, he’s a brilliant contrast to JS being himself.

I’d like to say I’m a 49 yo physician, Mr Rhodes - thank you very much! Never had much use for Che G. Good thing you’re here. If there weren’t folks like you around, JS & SC wouldn’t have as much material (although Obama seems to be providing plenty of fodder - so much for the “left leaning idiot”). Understanding ironic humor & satire requires a certain level of, um, IQ and an open mind. I sense a steel-plated door…

Tad, your well reasoned discourse has too many big words. Won’t reach your target audience. Proves you are also an over-educated “left leaning idiot”. Isn’t everyone who knows what “trenchant” & “ad hominem” mean? You even know who CG is. Clearly you are the enemy too… Be my friend? Bwahahahaha!!! Oh. Sorry. That just slipped out….

Comment by Dragonmum from North Carolina — August 21, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

The Daily Show CAN BE “an intellectual respite from the self-aggrandizing sensationalism of traditional news sources” but it is when Jon Stewart seeks to confront and “debate” those he feels need to be challenged that the show often descends into something quite similar.

Granted, Stewart can turn a phrase with the best of them and has a knack for digging up footage that contradicts politicians and pundits current statements.

The problem I have with Stewart’s “big moments” such as the interview with Jim Cramer is that they are neither informative nor are they particularly FUNNY. Stewart has a tendency to oversimplify issues and spends his interviews looking for zings to make his audience go “Woo!” rather than engage his guests and LISTEN to what they have to say.

One recent example was his interview with Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, regarding the so-called “torture memos.” May had little opportunity to state his case without being constantly interrupted by Stewart’s wisecracks and the audience reaction. What made it worse was when Stewart became shrill and extra sanctimonious, ruling out even making a terrorism suspect uncomfortable and calling Harry Truman a “war criminal” for ordering the atom-bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (To his credit, Stewart apologized the next day for his remarks about Truman.)

The interview with Cramer made me question Stewart’s comedic intentions. The interview with May made me question Stewart’s integrity in general. Rather than either find humor in the issue or really look at the facts May had to present, Stewart became just as sensationalistic and over-the top as those he mocks on the cable network news shows.

What is aggravating about Stewart is that he is, by his own admission, one of the boys sitting in the back of the classroom throwing spitballs. What he does is relatively easy, easier than actually taking a complex issue and trying to figure out solutions. As the perpetual bystander, Stewart does not have to make any commitments or sacrifices nor offer any solutions. 

That would be fine if he chose to stick to comedy. But in stepping into the role of “confrontational journalist” without the journalistic ethos, Stewart does a disservice to his audience.

If Stewart is a cultural icon, then the culture is intellectually bankrupt. No news there.

Comment by John Nihen from Boston, MA — August 21, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

Tad Davies, thank you for the well-written reply to Mr. Rhodes’ “comment”.

I don’t need to re-hash any of what you so eloquently said, but I will add to it with my own ad hominem.  Mr. Rhodes is what’s wrong with America.

Comment by John JJ Heimer-Schmidt from N. Cal — August 22, 2009 @ 12:27 am

Thank you, Jan from Sydney!

Comment by Elizabeth Crawford from US-American in Germany — August 24, 2009 @ 8:30 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?