Why Jon Stewart is Right, and Moore and Limbaugh are Wrong

[Pangloss]

Great piece today from John Avalon. Avalon is a senior editor at The Daily Beast, which was started by conservatives but has columnists from both sides and a serious focus on a more common-sense approach to governance, elimination of corruption, and a return to centrism in America. Avalon is best known as the author of two books: Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics, and Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. As you can see from the cover, conservative though he may be (he's married to Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover), he has no trouble aiming his shots at the right.

 

 

Anyway, let's take a look at what he says:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-22/opinion/avlon.jon.stewart.rally_1_campaign-rally-stewart-and-colbert-media-manipulation?_s=PM%3AOPINION

 

Sure, Stewart and Colbert are comedians and their rallies could wind up boosting ratings for their shows. But there's a serious point underlying these events.

 

All this excitement is a reflection of the fact that Jon Stewart earned the title of "the most trusted man in news" in a Time magazine online poll last year.

 

Media manipulation by professional partisans on both sides has become so predictable that satire has emerged as the last, best way to cut through the spin cycle.

 

Viewers' intelligence is respected even as they are entertained, and between laughs the civic backbone begins to straighten a bit. News doesn't need to taste like medicine, and nonpartisan does not have to mean neutral.

 

There is a silent majority of Americans who feel politically homeless in today's polarized debates. They are not activists obsessed with politics. But they are no less patriotic than the partisans.

 

Huzzah! ABC News' Diane Sawyer called the Stewart rally "his answer to Glenn Beck", and that may well be accurate, but I think it misses a key point -- this is not a case of tit for tat! This is not an angry reaction of the kind that the media so badly wants to fawn over and splatter all over our televisions. It's really the opposite of that. As Stewart put it so well last week, this is about "bringing it down a notch".

 

I think the decision to have Colbert "oppose" the rally with his fight to "Keep Fear Alive" is not only comic genius, but political genius as well. Colbert can stand out as a pitch-perfect example of what's worst about current American politics, which Stewart can then answer directly without having to worry about whether he's offended a Beck supporter, or a Palin supporter, or a Moore supporter, or a Maddows supporter.

 

What do you all think?

[Moontanman]

I agree whole heartedly, this time of the wing nuts and the extremes have come very close to ruining our country. Nothing gets done, lies are rampant and spread with out a thought if it serves the extremes, fear is the only motivation getting any acknowledgment. It's way past time for Americans to wake up and realize that just because a person or a party tells them what they would like to hear doesn't make it true or good...

Edited September 25, 2010 by Moontanman

[lemur]

From a discourse-analysis perspective, this is very anti-democratic political rhetoric. Not only are these critics saying that they disagree with their opponents or that their opponents are wrong or misguided and giving their reasons, they are elevating ad hominem attack to the level of labeling them insane. At the point that one or only certain political perspectives are validated as "sane," that means democracy has reached a point where political censorship is exercised through mental-health diagnosis. If we're now wise enough to see that homosexuality was only pathologized as insanity to punish and correct people's sexual behavior, why can't we also see that doing the same thing to certain political views is problematic.

 

Obviously people are going to say that this is just humor and not meant that seriously, but let's face it, part of the reason this kind of humor is so popular is because people like to play with the notion of really meaning something without having to reasonably defend it. So they will instigate a discourse about the insanity of a certain party to propagate the idea without actually subjecting it for discussion. In this way they can advance a political agenda to completely disarm their opponent without even taking their views into serious consideration. Is their any more anti-democratic approach to public discourse possible than this?

[Moontanman]

From a discourse-analysis perspective, this is very anti-democratic political rhetoric. Not only are these critics saying that they disagree with their opponents or that their opponents are wrong or misguided and giving their reasons, they are elevating ad hominem attack to the level of labeling them insane. At the point that one or only certain political perspectives are validated as "sane," that means democracy has reached a point where political censorship is exercised through mental-health diagnosis. If we're now wise enough to see that homosexuality was only pathologized as insanity to punish and correct people's sexual behavior, why can't we also see that doing the same thing to certain political views is problematic.

 

Obviously people are going to say that this is just humor and not meant that seriously, but let's face it, part of the reason this kind of humor is so popular is because people like to play with the notion of really meaning something without having to reasonably defend it. So they will instigate a discourse about the insanity of a certain party to propagate the idea without actually subjecting it for discussion. In this way they can advance a political agenda to completely disarm their opponent without even taking their views into serious consideration. Is their any more anti-democratic approach to public discourse possible than this?

 

 

Yes, the lies and distortions now being used to incite fear and loathing into the general population by the extremes of both political parties is far worse...

[Sisyphus]

From a discourse-analysis perspective, this is very anti-democratic political rhetoric. Not only are these critics saying that they disagree with their opponents or that their opponents are wrong or misguided and giving their reasons, they are elevating ad hominem attack to the level of labeling them insane. At the point that one or only certain political perspectives are validated as "sane," that means democracy has reached a point where political censorship is exercised through mental-health diagnosis. If we're now wise enough to see that homosexuality was only pathologized as insanity to punish and correct people's sexual behavior, why can't we also see that doing the same thing to certain political views is problematic.

 

Obviously people are going to say that this is just humor and not meant that seriously, but let's face it, part of the reason this kind of humor is so popular is because people like to play with the notion of really meaning something without having to reasonably defend it. So they will instigate a discourse about the insanity of a certain party to propagate the idea without actually subjecting it for discussion. In this way they can advance a political agenda to completely disarm their opponent without even taking their views into serious consideration. Is their any more anti-democratic approach to public discourse possible than this?

 

No, it's the opposite of what you say. They're not calling the political positions insane. They're calling the rhetoric insane. The slogan is "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." It's taking a stand against the kind of hyperbolic, fear-mongering ad hominem rhetoric that has become more popular, no matter what actual political position it's being employed in support of.

[lemur]

No, it's the opposite of what you say. They're not calling the political positions insane. They're calling the rhetoric insane. The slogan is "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." It's taking a stand against the kind of hyperbolic, fear-mongering ad hominem rhetoric that has become more popular, no matter what actual political position it's being employed in support of.

So are they giving serious consideration to the opposing viewpoint and engaging it constructively then?

[divagreen]

So are they giving serious consideration to the opposing viewpoint and engaging it constructively then?

 

Stephen Colbert is playing a Poe.

[Pangloss]

From a discourse-analysis perspective, this is very anti-democratic political rhetoric. Not only are these critics saying that they disagree with their opponents or that their opponents are wrong or misguided and giving their reasons, they are elevating ad hominem attack to the level of labeling them insane. At the point that one or only certain political perspectives are validated as "sane," that means democracy has reached a point where political censorship is exercised through mental-health diagnosis. If we're now wise enough to see that homosexuality was only pathologized as insanity to punish and correct people's sexual behavior, why can't we also see that doing the same thing to certain political views is problematic.

 

Obviously people are going to say that this is just humor and not meant that seriously, but let's face it, part of the reason this kind of humor is so popular is because people like to play with the notion of really meaning something without having to reasonably defend it. So they will instigate a discourse about the insanity of a certain party to propagate the idea without actually subjecting it for discussion. In this way they can advance a political agenda to completely disarm their opponent without even taking their views into serious consideration. Is their any more anti-democratic approach to public discourse possible than this?

 

I think you're right in saying that it's gone beyond simple humor. As the author of this article points out, if Jon Stewart is polled as the most trusted man in news, and as his colleague Stephen Colbert was called to testify before Congress yesterday, I think we can finally put to rest the notion that this is purely entertainment.

 

I think your overall point has merit as well, but this stuff all feels like "gray area" to me. Just to give an example, I don't agree with Jon Stewart's overall *apparent* (see below!) opinion of Glenn Beck, but I do think that when Beck is focused on doom and gloom and poised-on-the-verge-of-destruction rhetoric that he's having a negative impact on society and I don't really see a problem with expressing that opinion (Stewart's and Avalon's opinion of Beck is just their opinion, and they're allowed to express it). What I think they miss is that Beck also has an optimistic side that focuses on motivation and common sense that has a lot of validity and applicability in the current environment.

 

But are they really attempting to silence extremism? It doesn't really seem to me that either Stewart or Avalon are actually condemning Glenn Beck and others. They're not even saying that they're always wrong. They're just saying, as Stewart put it, "take it down a notch". I'm not sure I entirely agree with even THAT point -- I often think escalation of the centrist voice would be a good thing. But the extremes have demonstrated quite well how escalation leads to breakdowns in communication and failure to move forward, and that's certainly not a good thing.

 

Like I said, a gray area. I guess that's a big part of the problem. It's not even easy to discuss problems that exist in a gray area, much less solve them.

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Stephen Colbert is playing a Poe.

 

Interesting.

 

It'd be funny if we found out some day that Stephen Colbert is a staunch conservative. But then... how would we tell?

[lemur]

I think your overall point has merit as well, but this stuff all feels like "gray area" to me. Just to give an example, I don't agree with Jon Stewart's overall *apparent* (see below!) opinion of Glenn Beck, but I do think that when Beck is focused on doom and gloom and poised-on-the-verge-of-destruction rhetoric that he's having a negative impact on society and I don't really see a problem with expressing that opinion (Stewart's and Avalon's opinion of Beck is just their opinion, and they're allowed to express it). What I think they miss is that Beck also has an optimistic side that focuses on motivation and common sense that has a lot of validity and applicability in the current environment.

 

It is completely reasonable to note that someone's rhetoric propagates a certain worldview or attitude and to explain that publicly and give suggestions for how to express the same views without negative effects. I think that is the constructive approach to addressing such things. The problem is when people jump on criticism as a way of undermining or marginalizing people to bury them and move on. This is the impression I got with the "insanity" label. Popular culture has a poor track record of being superficial and unconstructive when it comes to criticism. This is because people tend to act like fearful sheep(le) who want a spotless leader whose shadow they can hide in OR they want to destroy that leader the moment a spot is found because they think they had the right to trust that person to lead them. It's all symptomatic, imo, of a general attitude of seeking others who will take responsibility for one's own life. Then, when you're unhappy about your life you can always blame the leader(s) and clamor for new ones. Of course every new leader gets destroyed because these sheeple are destroying them but that's just all the more reason for them to validate their own middle-position and criticize "extremes." The flock will eventually melt down to unsustainable levels this way, imo, but I wonder how long that will take.

Edited September 25, 2010 by lemur

[divagreen]

Interesting.

 

It'd be funny if we found out some day that Stephen Colbert is a staunch conservative. But then... how would we tell?

 

 

By his actions I surmise.

 

And I am not trying to imply that Stephen Colbert is "a deep down inside" staunch conservative...he is playing an over the top conservative in order to parody the current political climate of the extreme right's style of engagement.

 

I think it is brilliant.

[Sisyphus]

So are they giving serious consideration to the opposing viewpoint and engaging it constructively then?

 

What opposing side? This isn't a movement to promote a particular policy platform.

 

John Stewart does personally express opinions, of course, and when he engages guests I think he's almost always fair and respectful. That isn't the focus of the show, however.

[Pangloss]

I think Lemur was maybe referring more to my reference to John Avalon and the "Wingnuts" title of his book. I agree that that's counter-productive, especially in the current environment.

[Mr Skeptic]

It'd be funny if we found out some day that Stephen Colbert is a staunch conservative. But then... how would we tell?

 

Well, for one thing, not only is it a parody, but it started off as a parody of the The O'Reilly Factor. Also, Poe's Law doesn't really apply because the guy has years of half-hour shows, not just some single 100-1000 character post. It's pretty clear that he goes out of his way to make his positions look silly.

 

I think the decision to have Colbert "oppose" the rally with his fight to "Keep Fear Alive" is not only comic genius, but political genius as well. Colbert can stand out as a pitch-perfect example of what's worst about current American politics, which Stewart can then answer directly without having to worry about whether he's offended a Beck supporter, or a Palin supporter, or a Moore supporter, or a Maddows supporter.

 

I don't think Stewart is all that worried about offending conservatives. I suppose it is better not to, though. Another aspect is that he can have Colbert conjure up the problems he wants to address, as you said, the "pitch-perfect example", but as a bonus it can be in "blatantly obvious" flavor.

[Pangloss]

Great interview of Jon Stewart by Bill O'Reilly this week. If you hurry you can catch it on YouTube before it gets deleted.

 

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Zsxs_PWjI

 

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H98xg6HS91s

 

It's a great example of a moderate, left-of-center guy debating with a moderate, right-of-center guy. And some pretty funny stuff in there all around.

 

O'Reilly will be Stewart's guest on Monday, to talk about his new book. (BTW, I haven't read Earth yet, but I am reading "Pinheads and Patriots" right now, and I agree with Stewart's jab at it in part 2 above. It's pretty shallow stuff, though it does have a few interesting insights.

[lemur]

I think Lemur was maybe referring more to my reference to John Avalon and the "Wingnuts" title of his book. I agree that that's counter-productive, especially in the current environment.

There's a current disconnect between two opposing economic philosophies. One says that the economy needs to grow to include everyone for them to survive and the other says that people need to be able to survive without the economy. These opposing economic viewpoints also tend to dichotomize on issues like religion, military purpose, etc. If neither side bothers to understand the other, what hope is there for democratic cooperation?

 

Btw, I was referring to the implication of the wingnuts book that republicans are simply insane and therefore problematic and impossible to cooperate with.

 

 

[divagreen]

Also, Poe's Law doesn't really apply because the guy has years of half-hour shows, not just some single 100-1000 character post...

 

It's pretty clear that he goes out of his way to make his positions look silly.

 

Poe's law does not apply to Steve Colbert? Seriously? Try the first one.

 

A list of examples for Poe's Law.

 

And there is this:

 

Investigators at The Ohio State University School of Communication found evidence supporting Poe's Law in a study published in 2009.[5] They measured the relative political conservatism and liberalism of 332 individuals. The study participants then viewed clips from The Colbert Report, a television show that is a parody of conservative news commentary shows such as The O'Reilly Factor and broadcast on the Comedy Central cable network. The researchers found that the relatively conservative people in their study reported that the star of the show, Stephen Colbert, was actually showing disregard for liberals and covertly expressing his true conservative attitude about the matter at hand. Liberals viewing the show tended to view the work as a sincere parody and not view Mr. Colbert as presenting his true political views. Curiously, the liberal and conservative viewers in the study found Mr. Colbert similarly humorous (a non-statistically significant difference). While not a direct or intentional test of Poe's Law, the results fit well with the predictions it makes.

 

 

With much respect, I was responding to Lemur's inquiry as to whether or not there was a respectful engagement of dialogue. By pointing out that it is a Poe, I was trying to,

 

A) let Lemur or any other poster know that Stephen Colbert, was not in fact, a right wing conservative

 

and

 

B) try to direct as to why he would take such a position in the first place

[lemur]

Dare I call this kind of politics, "post-modern?" The reason I say this is because I think (modernized) ideals of democratic discourse have eroded with the evolution of mass media techniques of seducing people into holding certain views or thinking about an issue in a certain way instead of explicitly reasoning a point of view and expressing full responsibility for what one believes and why. Comedy can be really anti-democratic because it's so much fun to laugh and people don't want to be the target of laughter/ridicule. So politically-oriented comedians can satirize certain views and viewers with weaker egos will latch on to the point of view that the comedian is implying not to be ridiculous and avoid giving serious thought to the ridiculed point of view out of fear that they might be ridiculed for taking an unpopular, unrealistic, or otherwise vulnerable position. So the driving interest in choosing political views for many media watchers, I think, is the desire for social approval and respect along with the fear of being criticized for taking an unpopular/marginal pov.

 

Of course, the media steers people into certain prescribed marginal views too by labeling some views and unpopular/marginal and nevertheless having popular people express them in ways that make independent political positioning seem sexy or valid. Ironically, it doesn't really matter which media-promoted position viewers embrace, there usually seems to be a strong element of emotion and social validation involved. This is not to say that no one who watches the media ever reasons in a really independent way and discusses what they come up with without self-censoring to appease social judgment. I just think the media provides many avenues for escaping negative social judgment by engaging in popular discursive styles like humor or vague but buzzing political views. As a result, you'll hear people express cookie-cutter statements about their political views regularly; i.e. something they heard in the media that is intelligent yet quip-ish. Then when you ask them to explain why they think what they do, or bring up a reason to re-consider their position in new light, they get irritated because they don't really have any active reasoning that goes along with their position. They just felt like it made sense in the context they heard it and so they say it to others to gain social validation as being politically involved.

Edited September 26, 2010 by lemur

[Pangloss]

Then when you ask them to explain why they think what they do, or bring up a reason to re-consider their position in new light, they get irritated because they don't really have any active reasoning that goes along with their position. They just felt like it made sense in the context they heard it and so they say it to others to gain social validation as being politically involved.

 

Well put. I think that's a valid reason to begin an interest in politics, but it's just a starting point -- you have to go on from there to compare different sources and not take pundits at their word (kind of a stage two, if you will).

[lemur]

Well put. I think that's a valid reason to begin an interest in politics, but it's just a starting point -- you have to go on from there to compare different sources and not take pundits at their word (kind of a stage two, if you will).

 

Sure, people can evolve into critical thinking about politics, but part of that evolution is learning to reflect on their own and others' approaches to media and other forms of authority. As long as they sleep in emotionality and reward-based social conformity, they're going to keep reproducing the thing that democracy is supposed to counteract.

[padren]

The problem with the current polarized political environment is the same issue as what happens in a completely unregulated free market: certain entities find it easier to destroy the competition than out perform them. The Republicans are trying to stonewall Democrats so they have no meaningful progress to show in the coming elections, and Democrats are trying to let them in hopes they'll hang themselves with all that rope. Both sides are trying to hurt the other party instead of providing voters with strategies that solve the problems that affect them - both have literally framed the entirety of "the single biggest problem facing voters" as "the other party has some margin of power that has to be reduced."

 

Those are policies of destruction, not progress.

 

Watching news today from any source as a moderate is almost impossible without a fully stocked bar. Watching Sarah Palin tell a reporter that the Alaska Legislative Council cleared her of any ethical violations or violating the public trust at it's point of conclusion, but that the Main Stream Media Liberals kept lying about it was a blatant lie that the "reporter" didn't even bother to challenge. It's only gotten worse since then, and meanwhile left leaning media keep giving Democrats a pass even when their rhetoric make John Kerry look passionate and to the point by comparison.

 

The funny thing is, if you want to get anything resembling news while you eat dinner (and get it down) you pretty much are left to the comedians that blast both sides for their blatantly hypocritical lie-ridden counter-productive platforms. So many people watch John because while he's definitely left-leaning, his overall tone towards the need for real solutions from Washington instead of partisan politics resonate with them.

 

One thing I will say about Jon's bias though: If the Republicans did come up with a real viable solution to any of our current problems, he would praise them for it and even chastise Democrats for stonewalling a discussion of it.

 

 

 

I think the most entertaining part of Jon's rally though, will be when O'Reilly goes simply to "find the green smoke" in the crowd to validate his conclusion that only stoners watch Jon. It should be interesting to see how much the "crazies" that love Jon get media attention versus how representative that segment is. It will be the closest thing we'll get to a "tit for tat" that we had with the crazies in the tea-party rallies. Not useful mind you, but definitely entertaining.