you're right. you got me there. I should have said that making comparisons like this (Bush = Devil--or even that Bush is the sole cause of all the problems w/ US policy) make legitimate CRITIQUES seem sullied by extension. In this, I'd include some of the more reasonable things Chavez himself says. In other words, saying something like this makes it harder to take him seriously--or to use him a reference for someone who also raises legitimate critiques. So...
> I love Jon Stewart, but he fucked up on this. This piece put him firmly
> in line with U.S. anti-Chavez propaganda. Why would any American spend
> any time castigating Chavez if not for propaganda? Chavez has no
> influence in this country, and the only reason to even think about him
> as an American is for the purpose of influencing Venezuela. Stewart's
> audience is Americans. He has no business telling Americans Venezuela's
> leader is crazy and that anybody who meets with him is crazy by
> association. That only makes it easier for the U.S. government to
> interfere in Venezuela's domestic affairs and to discredit critics of
> the U.S. government.
In response to this, I'd say that Chavez has far more of a responsibility to seem sane and reasonable and not propagandistic (i.e. making comparisons to ideological commonplaces like the devil) when he appears in public. And when you stand in front of the UN and you say it smells like sulfur because the Devil, in the form of Bush, had stood there before, it doesn't do much for your world image, even if it does play to the base back home. And, when anyone stands in front of the UN and says that, I don't think it's all that propagandistic to point it out on a comedy show because it's pretty funny. I'll agree that they took it too far, but I don't see how the people at comedy central have more of a responsibility to guard Chavez's international (or domestic US) image than Chavez does.
As for the association thing, this is something that they've talked about before. Back in February they had some clips of Bellafonte going to the visit and the footage of that event, in the context of US discourse in particular, but even among leftists, made Bellafonte seem more than a bit kooky. I'll have to dig up that episode for the transcript, but, again it is the kind of footage that doesn't help the general cause because it makes people with legitimate critiques suspect in the eyes of the general population.
Finally, I disagree that Stewart's audience is solely American. It is, indeed, along with all US TV primarily American. But the Daily Show is rebroadcast officially on CNN and several other channels in Europe. It is available for purchase on iTunes and, as Stewart has known for at least a year, there is a fairly vigorous trading of the show via torrent files on a much larger international basis. I doubt this influences the content much, but I'm sure they have an awareness of the somewhat international audience when covering world events. In this case, of course, it was actually a local event. The UN Building isn't all that far from the studios where the show is taped.
> And Stewart cannot for a second take refuge in the "comedian" label.
> He's funny, yes. But he's not a comedian. He's a political figure and
> satirist, and he is that by very deliberate choice. As an American, he
> has no business taking on Chavez, except as a media pawn to advance
> American imperial adventures there, which I am sure Stewart does not
> wish to be (and which is why I characterize it as a mistake). If he
> wants to be serious (and, make no mistake about it, he does), he should
> focus on only one thing: the U.S. government.
>
I think Stewart is a pretty funny comedian. Heard a stand up show he did, and laughed much more than I expected to. Then again, I might be a pretty easy mark. I thought this ( link http://getbehindjesus.net sent around yesterday) was so hilarious, I laughed about it all day. But I think one could say almost the same about Chavez. Saying things like this doesn't make him look good either.