Michael Maiello's picture

    Surviving The Daily Show

    By Michael Maiello on Sat, 02/14/2015 - 1:59pm | Arts & Entertainment

    The Daily Show was obviously a great thing for American comedy.  At its best, it showed us what comedy can really do for society and reminded us why, in Shakespeare's King Lear, the Fool alone was able to speak truth to power.  The best moment for The Daily Show, to me, was when host Jon Stewart appeared as a guest on CNN's Crossfire in 2005 and so embarassed its host that CNN ultimately had to abandon the show.

    Then, after the Financial Crisis, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli ranted about the "losers" with underwater mortgages.  Santelli's speech, delivered in front of cheering pit traders in Chicago, is credited with sparking Tea Party conservatism.  It definitely derailed any discussion about using the government to stop the foreclosure crisis.  Stewart invited Santelli on his show and Santelli accepted.

    Then Santelli's bosses thought better of that decision.  I presume they realized that what Stewart did to Crossfire, as a guest on their turf, was going to look like softball compared to what Stewart would do to Santelli on the set of The Daily Show.  As a replacement for Santelli, CNBC offered uo Jim Cramer.  Cramer had his own following and billions in the bank from his earlier career as a hedge fund manager and founder of TheStreet.com, once an internet darling and undoubtedly part of the post-2000 democratization of stock investing.  Stewart humiliated Cramer.  The interview should have been a career ender but Cramer took to fellow NBC networks to plead that he was treated roughly and his hardcore fans didn't punish him for his poor performance.  He basically went on with his career as if the Stewart takedown never happened.

    CNN also went on its merry.  While Crossfire was canceled (to be briefly revived five years later, the cable news pioneer deteriorated to the point of self parody.  The mainstream media is too full of itself to ever really be embarassed and it seems incapable of adapting in order to meet smart criticism.  Instead we get Brian Williams, news showman, wielding influence to get his daughter a primetime special. We get Thomas Friedman and David Brooks in The Times.  We're told to take Politico seriously as a news organization.

    A generation looked to The Daily Show and the spin-off Colbert Report as rival sources of news, not as comedy shows.  Bill Maher and now Jon Oliver also went along for that ride.  I don't take much issue with the position that one could totally replace the mainstream media with current affairs comedy shows and wind up reasonably well informed about the state of the country and the world.

    Put another way, Slate reacted to the announcement of Jon Stewart's retirement with predictable "contrarian" pieces arguing that Stewart wasn't all that good for progressives and that we don't need The Daily Show anymore.  There's some irony, I think, in Slate telling us that we don't need The Daily Show.  Isn't a better question: who really needs Slate?

    Topics: 
    Arts & Entertainment

    Comments

    What I noticed was young people became interested in politics and news because of Comedy Network.  It helped to get them engaged on the internet and they would comment on the shows in threads like on Reddit.   

    After Joh Oliver show on net neutrality and told all the internet commenters that they were practicing to write to the FCC and get those emails written and sent.   We have him to thank for the current change of mind and classify internet as a Class II like telephone.  FCC got hammered right after that with emails demanding net neutrality. 

    Slate is wrong because you want to influence the young to take a interest in voting.  The Democratic Party needs them. 


    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 02/14/2015 - 2:25pm

    Colbert and Stewart were great at engaging those oriented towards getting political discussion on TV.  The two comedians shows were especially popular for the younger ages who detected the hypocrisy of Fox News, CNN, Cramer or other parts of the MSM,

    That success highlights the unfortunate fact our 24/7 news channels, much of the MSM itself, corporate executive news 'reporters', choice of and questioning of guests, the never in depth 24 hr. news cycles, are designed towards grabbing eyeball$, promoting beltway propaganda (maintaining access to power), and not rocking the corporate/political national boat.

    People who do not watch TV News have been shown to be better informed on current events than those that do, overall we might be better off completely avoiding TV News. Until that happens, for many, a show like Stewart's will be missed.


    by NCD on Sat, 02/14/2015 - 9:01pm

    Jon Stewart to replace Brian Williams ?  NOW wouldn't that be a game changer and an arrow in our quiver?  

    Take over a major network. in prime time ?

    NBC NIGHTLY NEWS with Jon Stewart ?


    by Resistance on Sat, 02/14/2015 - 10:48pm

    What I find ironic is the timing. One could say that Stewart laughed us all the way to a near take over of the country by Republicans. But we all know the pitfalls of correlational thinking.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 02/15/2015 - 12:46pm

    Why would you think Stewart had anything to do with 

    near take over of the country by Republicans.

    I believe Stewart exposed both the two major parties as one and the same bird (vulture) , with a left and a right wing, both sides just as dumb  as the other, with their ability to confuse the masses who are dumber than a box of rocks.  


    by Resistance on Sun, 02/15/2015 - 1:47pm

    You are another victim of Both Siderism MSM BS.

    Both sides do it, or "Both Siderism" is the guiding mantra of the beltway MSM. It's why Republicans are never held to account for anything.

    It's why John Stewart wasn't overall all so great.....along with TV News in general as I pointed out......and why Oxy has a very good point above on the GOP being put back into control of Congress.

    Driftglass Both Siderism:

    There are times when both sides -- when many sides -- are wrong or mistaken or damnfool.  However these are overwhelmingly outweighed by the many, many, many more times when the Right is clearly wrong and/or insane and/or actively destructive and/or acting in bad faith.

    Which is why pundits and public intellectuals who use their positions of privilege and influence to deliberately cripple our ability to address national problems by reflexively responding to every Conservative atrocity with "Both Sides Do It"

    Driftglass Both Siderism:

    Both Siderism is uniformly everywhere. It's like the Beltway's own Iridium Layer.

    It's continued existence is why it is impossible to have a reasonable debate about anything ever.  It's constant maintenance is our media elite's prime directive.

    Driftgalss Both Siderism:

    The short history of modern American politics is as follows:

        Conservatives poison the public well with paranoia, bigotry and plain bugfuck insanity while sabotaging the government on purpose to gain political and economic advantage.

        Liberals point out that poisoning the public well and sabotaging the government are, y'know. bad things.

        Centrists clutch their pearls until their palms bleed, and then blame their stigmata on both sides being equally unreasonable and mean.

    Driftglass Both Siderism:

    Once upon a time, the media could just snuggle up to the Bush Administration and be assured of being being kept well, but once the Bush Administration went tits up and a tidal wave of bloody reality made it impossible to continue to blame the bad news about Iraq on Bush-hating Dirty Hippies, the only coin of their realm became Both Siderism.


    by NCD on Sun, 02/15/2015 - 3:46pm

    I guess it depends on whose Kool - aid you drink.

    The Democrats want the same money from the Rich donors, as does the other side, because both parties are at the trough.

    Both sides take advantage of the common people.  

    The Democratic party promises to relieve the poor but they know exactly where their  money comes from, to run a successful campaign  

    Promise the peasants everything to get elected and once in power serve "wealth and privilege"

    Both sides do it, they are not stupid;...... the people are 

    Remove your blinders Pollyanna, you've drank the Koolaid and you have become blind.

    In case  it hasn't dawned on you;,the whole system is corrupt because of it's propensity for double-  dealing, duplicity, treachery, betrayal, double-crossing, unfaithfulness, untrustworthiness, infidelity, bad faith, disloyalty, breach of trust, fraud, underhandedness, cheating, dishonesty, deceit, deceitfulness, deception, falseness. 

    At times you hear  "Sorry" ..... after the crooks are caught. 

    Maybe you really are NAIVE and don't know "money talks"? 

    The people are thrown into a dark pit of despair and covered over until election time, after the election they are again thrown into the darkness, pulled out when it serves those in power.

    It's a strategy that works; The Republicans blame the other side as does the Democrats blame the other side. 

    But who is really going to pay?  The peasants;  just as it has always been.


    by Resistance on Sun, 02/15/2015 - 7:33pm

    A healthier nation would not have any place for a Jon Stewart, because its politics and media would not give a Jon Stewart such an endless treasury of material.

    Stewart's satire was a monument to how far our public life has drifted from any sense of reality, elementary logic, or shame.

    And would like to have seen Stewart become irrelevant. But it's pretty clear that he's not.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Mon, 02/16/2015 - 3:04pm

    I am an old man.

    I thought SNL was going downhill by 1980.

    Well they survived.

    We cannot predict who will tweek our imaginations.

    I really did not think Oliver was that good, but his show is pretty damn good.

    I recall so many let downs over the years, but I recall real geniuses coming to the fore.

    Cable expanded the damn three channel medium.

    All those old peeps on SNL on Saturday, almost made me cry. My god, the boomers are so goddamn old. hahahaah

    After all these years, some sort of cable will provide us with a 'news show'.

    The producers of the 'old' Stewart show might pick the wrong person (guy or gal) and the 'numbers game' will survive.

    Jon did his job.

    We shall see.

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 02/16/2015 - 5:06pm

    Latest Comments