Don't be depressed. I don't think Jon Stewart is brilliant. I just think he does a pretty good job within the confines of the US media.
But I also don't think we have the same definition of propaganda. Yes the comedy on the Daily Show (which is the collective effort of twenty or so writers) is middle of the road and often ideologically tame. But if it wasn't, I doubt it would have viewers, sponsors, a venue, etc. That's the way ideology works. To call that propaganda is an exaggeration. I'm not defending it, but it's hardly the same as when the US government stages a PR event and the media covers it as news. Propaganda has intent and power behind it; towing the line (or making a joke which relies on the dominant interpretation) is insidious and problematic, but to say it's the same thing as propaganda misuses the term, in my opinion.
Besides, if the Daily Show moved at all to the left, they'd have to contend with people like Doug's "fans" who get mad when you don't present a hard line, definitive argument that Bush and Cheney are the omniscient, omnipotent masters of all that is unholy. In that case, I don't think the satire would work quite as well. And certainly they wouldn't say that even on Chomsky TV (except to get viewer donations, like at Pacifica). As for the comedy, the team at TDS is worlds better than someone like Bill Maher, who is ostensibly more identified as "liberal," but takes every opportunity to reaffirm common understandings of "those terrorists." I'd also say that, Colbert manages to get more jabs in at jingoism by being jingoistic himself.
Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> So what have we learned from Jon Stewart this week?
>
> The lesson is, always be polite, even when you're
> talking about mass murder. Chavez should have soberly
> declared Bush in particular and US foreign policy in
> general 'unhelpful' or 'counterproductive' or used
> some other diplomatically smooth description.
> Bellafonte, during his visit, should have called Bush
> 'mistaken' or 'misguided' and left the terrorist word
> out of the mix.
>
> This way, clever chaps like Stewart wouldn't have
> ammunition for their double-take brand of comedy and
> sensitive Americans - easily offended when their
> leaders are compared to riff raff bomb throwers and
> hijackers - might listen to more substantive
> critiques.
>
> Sorry to be blunt (or perhaps 'unhelpful'), but that
> sounds like a plateful of bollocks to me.
>
It is a plate of bollocks. Unfortunately, it's the only thing on the menu right now in the good ol' USA. And until clever orators are willing to get creative with the bollocks we're given, rather than giving ammunition to the people who claim we're all tin-foil hat wearing nutjobs, that's all there's gonna be.
I see your point (and Carl's). Chavez's speech was indeed quite good and a welcome response to the platitudinous rantings of the current US president the day before (and the day before that, and the day before that...) In fact, the rest of the speech is quite measured, if pointed, so much so that it is almost guaranteed that, absent the one or two lines about Bush being the devil, no one in the mainstream press--including Stewart or Colbert--would have mentioned it at all. I think this is the real issue you're talking about, which is that having a more measured kind of speech isn't going to get any critic of the US any better showing in the press: it just makes them irrelevant to those institutions. So they might as well, to paraphrase the Columbia U prof Carl sent around earlier, play to the crowd back home, stay true to your principles, etc. Not a bad idea: it's worked so far for Bush.
I just happen to believe that there is such a thing as bad publicity and
giving CNN, FOX news and, yes, Comedy Central, a fifteen second sound bite that makes you sound like you're off kilter in any way does hurt the chances that the more substantive parts of the message will be heard (or even excerpted). All of this is assuming that you don't actually believe that Bush is the incarnation of Evil, in which case we're left merely with his doppleganger, easy pickings for his handlers, as they've shown time and again. As for the Bellafonte terrorist line, I think the definition fits most the US actions, but Bush is hardly the worst: just the latest. And the fact that he's been re-elected and still enjoys any measure of support makes it hard to pin that on him alone rather than on every American citizen.
Chavez claims in his speech that the American people want peace. That's nice to think but, in so far as they say that, what they really mean is that they want peace, prosperity, etc. for themselves and if that means breaking a few eggs abroad, well that's the price of "freedom." And how can we give that gift to others if we don't make sure we have it first?
It flows from us, right? We invented freedom, in a little laboratory with Jesus and Jefferson, right? Bush didn't create that mentality: he just exploits it. I think there are plenty of ways to make that point, using the word "terrorist" any number of times to refer to these actions and mentalities, without succumbing to the temptation of ever uttering the easily excerptable phrase "George Bush is the greatest tyrant and terrorist in the world." The latter, of course, can be used, but when US domestic, mass audience (i.e. commercial) news and entertainment organizations process it according to the dominant hegemonic ideology one shouldn't be surprised. I'd argue Jon Stewart is better than the average commentator, but he wouldn't be on TV right now if he was a whole lot better.
In between these segments they show advertisements for bollocks: it hurts your chances of selling those spots if you're only and always saying "Nevermind the bollocks" and, for the most part, viewers are only interested in hearing the latter if you're eating the bollocks with them, even as you show them the marginal possibility that there might be something tastier, more nutritious, etc. I'm straining this metaphor, but hopefully it still makes sense.
-s