Influence of Media on Reality -- Jon Stewart Takes On Jim Cramer

[Pangloss]

Well, the next difference is that Jon Stewart actually accomplishes things.

 

The same could be said of Rush Limbaugh. Actually if you look at the historically significant awakening of the right in the 1980s and 1990s, for which he is a major catalyst, he could be viewed as making far more of a "difference" than Jon Stewart. And in a very real way Jon Stewart is an answer to Rush Limbaugh, much as Air America is.

 

 

Jon Stewart is substantive in what he's trying to accomplish, and he's going after the news media themselves, not just prattling off substanceless partisan points because that's what his audience wants to hear.

 

Actually he does "prattle off substanceless partisan points that his audience wants to hear." He seems to be aware of the down side of this and tries to avoid egregious examples of it, but he still does it from time to time, especially with regard to Bush and in particular with Iraq. He should have a lot of egg on his face over Iraq, but I don't hear him apologizing or admitting he was wrong about whether the mission could be successful. He didn't blow that call because he was being objective and keeping an open mind, he blew that call because he was predisposed to think Bush and war to be wrong and unacceptable.

 

 

I'd be perfectly fine with you making a comparison with Rush Limbaugh and someone like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, because they are largely demagogues pandering to their audience.

 

They are more obvious about it, and less valuable in their commentary, I agree. I am with you 100% about the greater value being in Stewart's corner, both in terms of reason and in terms of presentation.

 

My point really is just that that doesn't mean there isn't danger in what he does. It's only playing with a smaller fire.

 

But hey, maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, I don't know. Stewart isn't exactly the "mad lust for power" type.

 

 

However, Jon Stewart may be primarily a comedian, but when he went after CNBC, and similarly when he went after Crossfire, he had some very poignant remarks to make, and his opponents were simply taken aback. Here was Mr. Funny Man being completely serious and completely on point.

 

Would you consider Stewart's clash with Cramer as mere demagoguery, or was Stewart actually substantive in his attacks?

 

Substantive and interesting, as well as insightful and producing a useful educational experience for many in his audience.

[iNow]

Okay, but let's get real. How often to you hear Rush attacking his peers... his fellow neocon ideologues? If they agree with Rush, they're in the safe zone. With Stewart, he attacks everyone equally. I stipulate that Stewart tends toward the liberal, but he doesn't let them off the hook simply for agreeing with him. I'm not sure the same can be said about Limbaugh.

 

There are parallels, of course, and I accept that point. However, the differences are stark, and we'd do well not to simply look past them in an attempt to make some larger point.

[Saryctos]

With Stewart, he attacks everyone equally.

 

I challenge this assertion! With no cable it's been a while since I've watched the show, but I used to watch it all the time. Unless things have changed in the last three years I would expect to see much more criticism of the right, and only cheap laughs at the left. It's important to watch how John uses the crowd to make his points.

[ParanoiA]

This thread is hilarious. The inability for one to recognize the hypocrisy in demagogue hero worship. This isn't a bad thread to use for study on how humans rationalize double standards that serve them; demonizing Rush while excepting Stewart. Stewart is no exception folks.

 

Stewart is a comedian who uses plurality to make half of his points. His trademark facial expressions entirely depend on the audience to presume his point in order to enjoy the contortions of "confusion". Please. It's see through.

 

This is what I mean by dumbed down comedy-reality fusion. A comedy show that wants to enjoy the reward of a serious political commentary program while not being forced to deal with the consequences of such responsibility. This is how you do it. You sell it as comedy, while you preach politics like George Carlin (RIP).

 

It's the best of both worlds for them. The pretense is that it's a comedy show, so there's no pressure for anything resembling sound reasoning or non-biased approaches to thought and logic - it's all "surface level" elementary school stuff. No different than any NIN cd, or System of a Down's indignation at jailing criminals.

 

 

Rush has made far more of a difference in the world. And note I didn't say positive or negative. He also did it by bravely stating exactly who he is and what he's doing. He wants to convince all of you he's right. He freely admits he's right wing to the core. He freely admits this is all about politics and accepts the responsibility and charges for the bias he's advocating for others.

 

The only difference between Stewart and Rush is that Rush isn't afraid to admit exactly who he is and take the hot seat, while Stewart appeals to the comedy pretense.

 

Of course you all like him, and I like John Lennon, he's the best songwriter to have ever lived, in my opinion. Doesn't make his politics right. Doesn't make his music necessary political study. If he wants that status, he needs to take a seat with the rest of the political thinkers in the world and support his ideology and take his licks like everyone else. Ducking behind the excuse "but I'm just a musician" doesn't cut it any better than appeals to comedic status.

[Sisyphus]

 

The only difference between Stewart and Rush is that Rush isn't afraid to admit exactly who he is and take the hot seat, while Stewart appeals to the comedy pretense.

 

I see it as the reverse. "Who he is" is a clown who mouths off about politics. They both are. But Stewart is openly the host of a comedy show, while Limbaugh straight-facedly claims to be legitimate. That is the pretense. And yes, you're absolutely right that Stewart's schtick, if it were held up to the rational standards of legitimate political debate, would mostly just be one appeal to ridicule (a fallacy) after another. But he also sometimes says worthwhile things, in which case it would also be fallacious (ad hominem) dismiss them because of the source. (Maybe Rush does too.) But that doesn't make it not a real comedy show (and it doesn't make the Rush Limbaugh show not a real comedy show either).

[ParanoiA]

I see it as the reverse. "Who he is" is a clown who mouths off about politics. They both are. But Stewart is openly the host of a comedy show, while Limbaugh straight-facedly claims to be legitimate. That is the pretense. And yes, you're absolutely right that Stewart's schtick, if it were held up to the rational standards of legitimate political debate, would mostly just be one appeal to ridicule (a fallacy) after another. But he also sometimes says worthwhile things, in which case it would also be fallacious (ad hominem) dismiss them because of the source. (Maybe Rush does too.) But that doesn't make it not a real comedy show (and it doesn't make the Rush Limbaugh show not a real comedy show either).

 

By those standards you're just requiring everyone who doesn't enjoy 99% agreement with the american people to be labeled as "a clown who mouths off about politics". That's muddying the water just to get your opponent dirty.

 

Sorry, Rush openly admits he's trying to push an ideology, claims that ideology to be superior to all others and spends all 3 hours of his show charging through that ideology and its philosophical roots. That's admitting who you are and what you're trying to do. He takes a lot of shit in that seat, and well deserved.

 

Stewart hosts a comedy show that might trot out a single ideological argument codified somewhere in the appeals to ridicule he sells us over and over again. They are apples and oranges. Stewart is not a real political show and Rush is not a real comedy show - although they both utilize the other for their respective shows.

[Sisyphus]

By those standards you're just requiring everyone who doesn't enjoy 99% agreement with the american people to be labeled as "a clown who mouths off about politics". That's muddying the water just to get your opponent dirty.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this. How am I doing that?

[ParanoiA]

I don't understand what you mean by this. How am I doing that?

 

I see it as the reverse. "Who he is" is a clown who mouths off about politics. They both are. But Stewart is openly the host of a comedy show, while Limbaugh straight-facedly claims to be legitimate. That is the pretense[/i'].

 

You're claiming they're essentially the same - and they are not - by lumping them both as clowns who mouth off about politics. And that's muddying the water to establish an appeal to their being the same, and then following that up with Stewart's "honesty" in casting his show as a comedy routine as opposed to ideological indulgence.

 

Think you what you want about the quality of the merchanise but Rush cleary sells his ideology without any false fronts. In this way, and only this way, he demonstrates more honesty than any corporate information business, or as some call them, the media.

[bascule]

Am I the only one who sees Rush as a slightly less insane Michael Savage?

[swansont]

I challenge this assertion! With no cable it's been a while since I've watched the show, but I used to watch it all the time. Unless things have changed in the last three years I would expect to see much more criticism of the right, and only cheap laughs at the left. It's important to watch how John uses the crowd to make his points.

 

One thing certainly has changed. The president is no longer a Republican (a shift true also of the congressional makeup). Of course, that has been true for only ~6% of the time in question here.

 

But in areas where you can make apples-to-apples comparisons, like corruption scandals and the like, has Stewart given the left a pass? I'd say no.

[Sisyphus]

ParanoiA:

You were also claiming they are the same: that they’re both ideologues (but only Rush is honest about it while Stewart hides behind the defense of being “just an entertainer”). I was just saying the inverse, that they’re both just entertainers pandering to an audience, but Rush tries to pass himself off as an ideological crusader (because that’s what his audience wants). At least when Stewart has something serious to say, he makes a clear distinction that that’s what he is doing.

[Pangloss]

Okay, but let's get real. How often to you hear Rush attacking his peers... his fellow neocon ideologues? If they agree with Rush, they're in the safe zone. With Stewart, he attacks everyone equally. I stipulate that Stewart tends toward the liberal, but he doesn't let them off the hook simply for agreeing with him. I'm not sure the same can be said about Limbaugh.

 

Maybe not, but he's at least partially responsible for the fact that John McCain is not President today.

 

But I agree with this point in general. I wouldn't say "equally" -- he's clearly biased left, but I don't think that was your point, I think your point was that he attacks idiocy all around, and that's true enough -- for what he considers to be idiocy, which at the moment happens to largely be what you and I also consider to be idiocy.

 

 

There are parallels, of course, and I accept that point. However, the differences are stark, and we'd do well not to simply look past them in an attempt to make some larger point.

 

The larger point being that some kinds of demagoguery are good because of what positions the demagogue is preaching?

 

That's an interesting proposition.

[bascule]

The larger point being that some kinds of demagoguery are good because of what positions the demagogue is preaching?

 

That's an interesting proposition.

 

It's not demagogy if the arguments have merit and substance, as you yourself said they did when he was taking on Cramer.

 

If anything, I think Stewart has tried to take on and eliminate demagogy. Look at Crossfire: a show where they take the issues of the day, and Paul Begala would say something to make all the liberals happy while Tucker Carlson would say something to make the conservatives happy, and the two would banter back and forth about how the other side was crazy.

 

That's the kind of thing Jon Stewart wants to put to rest, and it also seems to be what you're accusing him of.

[swansont]

One stark difference between Stewart and Limbaugh is that Stewart makes no bones about the fact that he's giving you fake news. Limbaugh, OTOH, makes stuff up and tries to peddle it as the truth.