Jon Stewart's Appeal to Moderacy

[Pangloss]

Over in another thread a question came up over whether Jon Stewart and The Daily Show have, lately, been as critical of Democrats as they have been of Republicans.

 

Let's take a look at some data for the past two weeks. Stewart typically does two segments of "news" before a third segment featuring a guest. Sometimes the guest gets two segments, leaving only one "news" segment, and sometimes they do something else (like promoting their upcoming rallies). As it turns out, we have a total of 14 segments to assess over this most recent span.

 

Thursday, September 30th (Guest: Justin Timberlake):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-september-30-2010-justin-timberlake

 

- Segment 1 main focus: Secret hold on Haiti relief by Republican Tom Colburn.

Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans.

 

- Segment 2 main focus: Obama's backyard BBQ tour, "bored straight".

Assessment: Primarily critical of President Obama.

 

 

Wednesday, September 29th (Guest: Linda Polman):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-september-29-2010-linda-polman

 

- Segment 1 main focus: Enthusiasm gap not addressed by administration's criticism of "irresponsible" Democratic voters.

Assessment: Primarily critical of President Obama.

 

- Segment 2 main focus: Democrat attack ads.

Assessment: Primarily critical of Democrats.

 

Tuesday, September 28th (Guest: Arianna Huffington):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-september-28-2010-arianna-huffington

 

- Segment 1 main focus: Israel undermining peace process with settlements.

Assessment: Neutral (international politics).

 

- Segment 2 main focus: Running out of helium.

Assessment: Neutral (no party focus).

 

 

Monday, September 27th (Guest: Bill O'Reilly):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-september-27-2010-bill-o-reilly

 

- Segment 1 main focus: Objections to Colbert congressional testimony from Democrats and Republicans.

Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans (more GOP congresscritters shown than Dems).

 

- Segment 2 main focus: None (extended guest segment with Bill O'Reilly).

 

 

Thursday, September 23rd (Guest: King Abdullah):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-september-23-2010-king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan

 

- Segment 1 main focus: US walkout during Ahmadinejad UN speach.

Assessment: Neutral. (Mainly critical of Ahmadinejad.)

 

- Segment 2 main focus: Republicans unveil their new ideas.

Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans.

 

 

Wednesday, September 22nd (Guest: Edward Norton):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-september-22-2010-edward-norton

 

- Segment 1 main focus: Senate fails to repeal DADT, "Are we run by a**holes?".

Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans. (Some criticism of Democrats but mainly aimed at GOP.)

 

- Segment 2 main focus: "Recession over" declaration, some swipes at Fox News Channel and President Obama.

Assessment: Neutral.

 

 

Tuesday, September 21st (Guest: Sigourney Weaver):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-september-21-2010-sigourney-weaver

 

- Segment 1 main focus: "Obama's kryptonite" (<sarcasm>"Just because she gave an incredibly reasonable critique of the Obama administration and cut to the very heart of this administration's greatest failings, so what? Who's she?" </sarcasm>)

Assessment: Primarily critical of President Obama, especially towards the end.

 

- Segment 2 main focus: Promo for Rally to Restore Sanity.

Assessment: Neutral.

 

Monday, September 20th (Guest: Jimmy Carter):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-september-20-2010-jimmy-carter

 

- Segment 1 main focus: GOP jumps on Tea Party bandwagon. ("The Right Club")

Assessment: Primarily critical of Republicans.

 

- Segment 2 main focus: Hillarious Asif Mahndvi segment exposing Union hypocrisy regarding part-time temporary picket workers.

Assessment: Primarily critical of unions (a progressive cause).

 

 

Tally for the two-week period (14 segments):

- 5 segments critical of Republicans

- 4 segments critical of President Obama and/or Democrats

- 1 segment critical of unions (a progressive cause)

- 4 segments neutral or not focused on American politics

 

If we look at this as a question of whether Stewart is more critical of the left or the right, it looks like a pretty even split to me. The union segment could be seen as just critical of a specific individual, which would mean that Stewart is criticizing the right slightly more than the left.

 

If we look at it as a question of whether Stewart is more critical of Democrats or Republicans, it looks like Stewart is criticizing the right slightly more than the left.

 

Overall conclusion: Stewart (at least recently) seems to be criticizing the right slightly more than the left. What do you all think? A valid approach? (Certainly we could use more data, but the premise of the question does include the word "recently".)

 

In terms of what this may mean, I think it shows that Stewart is standing behind the promise of his "rally to restore sanity". The idea seems to be "toning down" the rhetoric and focusing on common ground. Which sounds great to me. What do you all think?

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, I'm pretty sure Stewart criticizes the right more than the left (which they have done plenty to deserve), probably still in quantity of criticism but also in quality of criticism. Also whoever is in power at the time gets bonus criticism, which is the Democrats for now. But whoever does something worthy of his criticism is very likely to get it, whatever side they are.

 

On the other hand, some of that could be my bias showing. Studies show that when things are ambiguous people predominantly choose the option that they like better, so that conservatives are more likely to think that Colbert actually does hold the conservative views he pretends to hold, he's just being funny.

[iNow]

If we look at it as a question of whether Stewart is more critical of Democrats or Republicans, it looks like Stewart is criticizing the right slightly more than the left.

 

Overall conclusion: Stewart (at least recently) seems to be criticizing the right slightly more than the left. What do you all think? A valid approach? (Certainly we could use more data, but the premise of the question does include the word "recently".)

Yes, definitely need more data. I would be reluctant to make any inferences until there was at least 2 or 3 months worth of data. While the qualifier "recent" was, in fact, used, it's too easy to be misled by an aberration with only 14 segments worth of info.

 

Also, as Mr Skeptic already noted, TDS criticizes whoever happens to be in the office of the president, so I'm further reluctant to include comments about Obama within the population of comments about Democrats. It seems we should have four buckets: 1) Republicans, 2) Democrats, 3) President and Administration, 4) Neutral and International.

 

That seems a more useful split, and when done that way, definitely shows a skew of criticism toward the right.

[Pangloss]

Fair enough, and I think a further look would be interesting. Unfortunately even this brief analysis took a couple of hours of re-watching old episodes and compiling the data, so I'll probably just leave it here, but I have no problem agreeing with the above. I don't think anyone disagrees that he's been critical of the President recently as well, and that could certainly be looked at as a separate "bucket".

 

I think it's accurate for me to say that Stewart has spent almost as much time over the past two weeks criticizing Democrats and the President as he has spent criticizing Republicans. I think bascule's point that he has a clear beef with Republicans is also supported.

 

So, regarding the title of the thread, and just to throw something out for more discussion: Does this data support the notion that, pursuant to his upcoming "Rally to Restore Sanity", Jon Stewart is making a generally non-partisan appeal for moderacy?

[CharonY]

Data is inconclusive (as noted above). Moreover the methodology may not lead to a result that could support (or falsify) the assumption. Moderacy does not necessarily mean that he would criticize both parties equally. It rather suggests that he would pound on those making outrageous claims.

Considering that democrats are in the government it is more likely that attacks from the right are more likely to amount to silliness. Though during the elections idiocy on the democrat side is to surely to surge.

Edited October 3, 2010 by CharonY

[Pangloss]

Considering that democrats are in the government it is more likely that attacks from the right are more likely to amount to silliness.

 

Why?

[CharonY]

As a rule of thumb the party (or parties) not in power tend to cry the loudest. Somewhat off-topic but the though crossed my mind that it could be amusing to collect the most ludicrous claims of either side (I am thinking "death panel" level of silliness) and to cross-compare the amount of them to their temporal proximity to elections.

 

Edit: I meant claims from actual politicians, not pundits.

Edited October 4, 2010 by CharonY

[Pangloss]

As a rule of thumb the party (or parties) not in power tend to cry the loudest.

 

Well I guess that's something you hear people say from time to time, but I'm not sure I believe it, especially with the current political climate.

 

Somewhat off-topic but the though crossed my mind that it could be amusing to collect the most ludicrous claims of either side (I am thinking "death panel" level of silliness) and to cross-compare the amount of them to their temporal proximity to elections.

 

I agree, and in pondering this further it occurs to me that the phrase "Rally to Restore Sanity" could mean different things to different people. Maybe some see it as just a plea to tone down the rhetoric, but I saw it as also a plea to find common ground and compromise on the issues. Isn't the lack of compromise how we got here? Isn't that why the rhetoric is so elevated?

 

Also, this makes me wonder whether some on the far left will feel betrayed by Jon Stewart, just as some have felt betrayed by President Obama. If so I would cheer that event, just as I cheered the disappointment felt by the religious right in President Bush. As with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc, when the screams get louder you know you must be doing something right.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, regarding the title of the thread, and just to throw something out for more discussion: Does this data support the notion that, pursuant to his upcoming "Rally to Restore Sanity", Jon Stewart is making a generally non-partisan appeal for moderacy?

 

Well he certainly didn't call it the "Rally to Restore Sanity to the Republicans", so he'd better be mostly non-partisan about it. Which doesn't mean the Republicans won't receive the brunt of it if they're the ones doing the most extreme things.

[CharonY]

I think his tangent was a media-biased view on American society, pretty much unrelated to political alignment. It is based on the assumption that around 20% or so of the Americans have silly views (death panels, secret muslim extremist terrorist president, CIA did 9-11, etc.) and that those dominate the media (one way or another). The "normal" majority does not make the media however and thus the view on American society is oddly distorted which in turn further heats up the discussion and leads to more distortion, polarization, etc.

 

Well I guess that's something you hear people say from time to time, but I'm not sure I believe it, especially with the current political climate.

Fair point, and I do not have the time to check whether there is data out there. However, generally the government takes the blame for everything going wrong under their watch, which gives the opposition more fuel. Also the opposition has an interest to paint the current picture as black as possible in order to win the next election.

What current political climate are you referring to?

[Marat]

Stewart's recent criticism of the Democrats could just be an expression of his continuing left-wing orientation, since the Left is increasingly irritated with the Democrats over their failure to push for a truly left-wing agenda.

 

I think the whole movement endorsing 'bipartisanship' in American politics is ridiculous, since if our goal is to be bipartisan, we can dispense with political parties, campaigns, platforms, and elections entirely! The whole idea of politics is partisanship, and bipartisanship is just another name for the dictatorship of a consensus.

 

That said, I find the whole 'Rally to Restore Sanity' rather bland. More important would be trying to find out why there is so much insanity in American politics, and I think the answer is all too clear. Since the Republican Party represents the interests of only the richest 5% of the population, in a truly sane, well-informed, open democratic process, they could never win a majority of the electorate. The Republicans are aware of this, so they do their best to spread as much fog, superstition, hysteria, obscurity, false information, and nonsense through the political process in the hope that the general public will become too confused to vote for its own best interests. Have you ever noticed how much dumber and sillier the leading Republicans are than the Democrats are? The Democrats have never had morons as stupid as Palin, Quayle, George Bush II, or Reagan, which is no coincidence, since Republicans are supposed to be stupid, since their electoral role is creating confusion rather than clarity, since that's the only way they can win.

[Pangloss]

Well he certainly didn't call it the "Rally to Restore Sanity to the Republicans", so he'd better be mostly non-partisan about it. Which doesn't mean the Republicans won't receive the brunt of it if they're the ones doing the most extreme things.

 

Sounds right to me. Though I don't hold Jon Stewart responsible for determining whether it's Democrats or Republicans who are "doing the most extreme things". As far as I'm concerned he's welcome to simply give his opinion on the matter, which each viewer can accept (or not) as filtered through their own perspective. But that doesn't mean that an overall message of moderacy won't get through, if well-presented.

 

 

What current political climate are you referring to?

 

Divisiveness and inability to find common ground even when it's staring at us in the face (e.g. immigration reform).

 

I want to nod at your point about his message being aimed more at (if I am paraphrasing accurately) media-driven public reactions rather than politics and the issues. You could well be right, and I wrong.

[iNow]

I want to nod at your point about his message being aimed more at (if I am paraphrasing accurately) media-driven public reactions rather than politics and the issues. You could well be right, and I wrong.

He gave an interview last Wednesday to NPR which aired yesterday. In it, he discusses how his problem is very much with media coverage and his despair at how people just accept the spin and lies. He stated roughly that you sort of expect it with politicians... that the lies and nonsense sort of come with the territory... so he doesn't get too bothered by that. What bothers him is the depth of the corruption and the fact that the people in place to challenge and shine light on it (the media) don't.

 

 

Listen for yourself:

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130321994

 

On Oct. 30, comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will host dueling rallies on the National Mall. Called "The Rally to Restore Sanity" and the "March to Keep Fear Alive," respectively, the two rallies closely mimic Glenn Beck's recent "Restoring Honor Rally," also held in Washington, D.C.

 

Stewart sat down with Terry Gross on Sept. 29 in front of a live audience at New York City's 92nd Street Y to discuss his time on The Daily Show, his role in the media, and the upcoming rally — which is being billed as "Woodstock, but with the nudity and drugs replaced by respectful disagreement."

 

"Like everything that we do, the march is merely a construct," he says. "It's merely a format, in the way the book is a format, a show is a format ... to be filled with the type of material that Stephen and I do and the point of view [that we have]. People have said, 'It's a rally to counter Glenn Beck.' It's not. What it is was, we saw that and thought, 'What a beautiful outline. What a beautiful structure to fill with what we want to express in live form, festival form."

[divagreen]

The Republicans are aware of this, so they do their best to spread as much fog, superstition, hysteria, obscurity, false information, and nonsense through the political process in the hope that the general public will become too confused to vote for its own best interests. Have you ever noticed how much dumber and sillier the leading Republicans are than the Democrats are? The Democrats have never had morons as stupid as Palin, Quayle, George Bush II, or Reagan, which is no coincidence, since Republicans are supposed to be stupid, since their electoral role is creating confusion rather than clarity, since that's the only way they can win.

 

Probably a lot of posters have seen this, but I think that it is worth it with respect to the OP and in response to Marat:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXclg6ZIVYc

 

I would just like to say that Palin endorsed her...

 

Since the Republican Party represents the interests of only the richest 5% of the population, in a truly sane, well-informed, open democratic process, they could never win a majority of the electorate.

 

Did somebody mention the Koch brothers?

[iNow]

He gave an interview last Wednesday to NPR which aired yesterday. In it, he discusses how his problem is very much with media coverage and his despair at how people just accept the spin and lies. He stated roughly that you sort of expect it with politicians... that the lies and nonsense sort of come with the territory... so he doesn't get too bothered by that. What bothers him is the depth of the corruption and the fact that the people in place to challenge and shine light on it (the media) don't.

 

 

Listen for yourself:

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130321994

 

Here's a short part of it I just transcribed so it's easier for those of you who cannot listen to understand the point being made:

 

 

There's a difference between disagreeing with people... Like newscasters on Fox News that I think are...uh... incorrect in their analysis of the days events, and people that threaten to kill you for putting a cartoon image of Mohamed in a bear suit... And that's a line that we too often forget, and it's very easy to dehumanize... uh... and I will say... in this room... I would imagine... you know... Beck and Palin are easier punching bags... and we can think of it as, "Oh my god, I'm so scared if they take over," but you know what? We'll be fine. You know... we had a civil war... just... we're not that fragile.

 

And, I think we always have to remember that people can be opponents, but not enemies... and there ARE enemies in the world, we just need the news media to help us delineate, and I think THAT's where the failing is... That the culture of corruption that exists in the media doesn't allow us to delineate between enemies and opponents, and that's where we sort of fall into trouble.

 

<...>

 

I think [doing the show has] made me less political, and more emotional. The closer you spend time with the political and the media process, the less political you become, and the more viscerally upset you become at corruption.

 

So, I don't consider it "political," because "political" I always sort of denote as a partisan endeavor, but I have become increasingly unnerved by just the depth of corruption that exists at many different levels. I'm less upset about politicians than the media. I feel like politicians... there is a certain inherent... you know the way I always explain it is... When you go to the zoo, and a monkey throws his feces... it's a monkey... but when the zookeeper is standing right there and he doesn't say, "Bad monkey," ... somebody's got to be the zookeeper.

 

So, I tend to feel much more strongly about the abdication of responsibility by the media than by political advocates.

 

<...>

 

I think what has changed is the media's sense of their ability to be responsible arbiters... I think they feel fearful. There is this whole idea now that there is this liberal media conspiracy, and so if they feel like they express any moral authority or judgment... which is what you would imagine is editorial control... that they will be vilified.

[Pangloss]

It's a great message. All about respect and avoiding any semblance of ridicule, animosity, antipathy, anything that separates.

 

I hope people hear it.

[iNow]

It's a great message. All about respect and avoiding any semblance of ridicule, animosity, antipathy, anything that separates.

I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think you're Hitler, but I think you're interpretation about Stewart wishing to "respect" and "avoid any semblance of ridicule" couldn't be more wrong, and couldn't be more against the evidence we have from actually watching and listening to Jon Stewart.

 

Some things need to be ridiculed.

Some things do not deserve respect.

The point is that we can disagree and be academically honest without demonization and demagoguery.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think you're premise is false. That's not at all what Stewart is talking about. I'll be watching TDS tonight for yet another example of the ridicule of which you suggest he's trying to "avoid any semblance."

Edited October 5, 2010 by iNow

[padren]

I think Jon really really doesn't want to do the news, preferring to do comedy, and feels just a little upset that it's been left up to him - a comedian - to point out the blatant hypocrisy, lies, flip-flopping, obstructionism, and demagoguery that both parties and now even the media portray. He's upset by the fact that no one is covering these sorts of comments unless it fits (or can be made to fit) a political agenda.

 

Take this article on TARP from NPR, or more accurately on the media's difficulty in presenting the story:

 

And what do we do with the news that TARP will not have cost anything like the $700 billion we thought it would? What if it really cost $50 billion, or less?

 

What if, in the end, the Troubled Asset Relief Program so controversial at birth and vilified throughout its two years of life turns out to have turned a profit for the government and the taxpayer?

 

We — most of the news media this is — simply don't know what to do with this news.

 

But it's also apparent that the TARP-as-hero story does not fit well with the TARP-as-Beelzebub narrative that has been so strong throughout this election year.

 

And narratives matter. Nothing is more central to journalistic practice than the telling of stories. Stories are how we capture, comprehend, explain and deliver the news. Without stories, we would be wandering lost across the landscape of events and sensations. We need a narrative, or we have no organizing idea.

 

This imperative applies not only to each day's events, but to the broader sweep of occurrences in succession. We need a narrative for each week, each month and each fiscal year. We need a narrative for every electoral cycle.

 

Now, it's clearly an opinion piece and I say the claims about the necessity of a narrative are invalid, but I can't say that the media in general doesn't consider the need for a narrative valid. For what the media has become, I can see the need for a narrative - something that boils it down for the public and frames it in a manner they can understand, at which point they can accept or reject the narrative and whichever news agency covered it with the most "appealing" narrative to that consumer would increase their viewership by one. Unfortunately, the practice of tailoring narratives runs counter to the goal of providing facts and letting people draw their own conclusions.

 

What's wrong with just reporting: "For all the criticisms of TARP, including the absence of checks and balances, the cost, the rush, the secrecy, the strong-arming, and a repayment strategy that doesn't go beyond 'trust us' the one thing we can say is that this time, it turned out not to cost us $700,000,000,000 and may be the key reason we avoided a major depression."

 

 

If anything, I think Jon's narrative is not right or left wing - it's "You can say and do what you want, but you will be held to account for what you say and do." and it applies to both the politicians and the media that fails to hold politicians accountable. I do think he gives a bit more slack to the left in that he has more benefit of the doubt that a social program to help the poor is "honestly to help the country" than a upper tax bracket break is "honestly to help the country" as a result of his own political leanings.

 

Overall though I think this has a minor impact on his narrative, because when he sees blatant hypocrisy, lies, flip-flopping, obstructionism, and demagoguery he is as (if not more) upset with liberals as he is with conservatives.

 

 

Secondarily: Pangloss, I appreciate the metrics you are using to to try and evaluate Jon's leanings, but I think it's somewhat backwards. I would say it does demonstrate that he will criticize The Left, but it doesn't address the reasons to the degree that can actually demonstrate causation with regards to the left/right criticism ratio. For that you have to look past who he's being critical of, and examine the common themes in what he's critical of cross-party. It's there that the "Stewart Narrative" emerges, which boils down to "Here's some politicians failing to give straight answers, and here's the media failing to call them on it." The comedy arises from the sheer cartoonishly absurd scale of these failings, hence as narratives go it's a pretty dark one.

 

If he has a political bias that emerges in the ratio you presented, you'd have to look at the stories of the day that are considered but rejected as material for the show, and the amount of material (and priority) vary day to day depending on what the two parties have been up to.

Edited October 5, 2010 by padren

[Pangloss]

I don't know if you all caught his Monday night reflection on the whole Rick Sanchez matter, but I couldn't help but think about this thread as I was watching it. It's rare for him to reflect on his own impact on the world, and he seemed to be acknowledging his role to some extent. I thought it was interesting. If you want to check it out it's the first few minutes of Monday night's show.

 

 

I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think you're Hitler, but I think you're interpretation about Stewart wishing to "respect" and "avoid any semblance of ridicule" couldn't be more wrong, and couldn't be more against the evidence we have from actually watching and listening to Jon Stewart.

 

Some things need to be ridiculed.

Some things do not deserve respect.

The point is that we can disagree and be academically honest without demonization and demagoguery.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think you're premise is false. That's not at all what Stewart is talking about. I'll be watching TDS tonight for yet another example of the ridicule of which you suggest he's trying to "avoid any semblance."

 

Ok, that makes sense, I shouldn't have included 'ridicule' in my previous list. And perhaps it's not so much about avoiding ANY separation as it is about separating extremist demagogues from mainstream people who may, for example, mean well but just have busy lives.

 

 

I think Jon really really doesn't want to do the news, preferring to do comedy, and feels just a little upset that it's been left up to him - a comedian - to point out the blatant hypocrisy, lies, flip-flopping, obstructionism, and demagoguery that both parties and now even the media portray. He's upset by the fact that no one is covering these sorts of comments unless it fits (or can be made to fit) a political agenda.

 

That's an interesting observation (actually one of several in that post), and IMO it fits what I see on the screen very well.

 

 

Overall though I think this has a minor impact on his narrative, because when he sees blatant hypocrisy, lies, flip-flopping, obstructionism, and demagoguery he is as (if not more) upset with liberals as he is with conservatives.

 

I agree.

 

 

Secondarily: Pangloss, I appreciate the metrics you are using to to try and evaluate Jon's leanings, but I think it's somewhat backwards. I would say it does demonstrate that he will criticize The Left, but it doesn't address the reasons to the degree that can actually demonstrate causation with regards to the left/right criticism ratio. For that you have to look past who he's being critical of, and examine the common themes in what he's critical of cross-party. It's there that the "Stewart Narrative" emerges, which boils down to "Here's some politicians failing to give straight answers, and here's the media failing to call them on it." The comedy arises from the sheer cartoonishly absurd scale of these failings, hence as narratives go it's a pretty dark one.

 

I have to say you really ate your Wheaties this morning. Darn good analysis there, IMO.

 

BTW, this seems like a good moment to refresh our memories of what may still be the best and funniest 15 minutes in the whole history of political television -- Jon Stewart's 2004 appearance on Crossfire, which was canceled three months later with CNN executives citing Stewart's appearance as a factor in the decision.