granted. but you seem to be holding thhis random comedian to some higher standard than any other television personality in US culture. Really, he has far less power. It's not like they have world leaders on the program every evening. And if they cricified them each time they came on, it would be a very rare occurence indeed. I also think that many viewers wouldn't watch on those nights precisely because they knew Jon would be too serious. I'll also point out that the only reason Musharraf was on the program was to promote his book.
> Chuck seemed to think one should not criticize Stewart based upon the
> political consequences of his actions merely because he is funny.
And what, exactly are the political consequences of his actions? The show didn't exactly endorse Kerry, but there was little doubt about which candidate viewers were asked to endorse. There was a lot of buzz about the effect this might have on the election. I doubt even on that level they were able to effect much change. If you mean that they don't challenge the dominant ideology of american, capitalist, patriarchal, heteronormative modernity, well that's not much of surprise is it? Except for, as B. points out, Wonder Showzen or a handful of other shows in the history of US television, there's little that does or has.
Even Wonder Showzen, while it has many more radical pretentions, borders on the simply anti-social. So though they have some pointed critiques of, for instance, the food industry and people on wall street, there are also little vignettes with the kids that are either simply disturbing (parents abusing them, questions that seem to border on popular notions of pedophilia, etc.) or just seem to be badgering people (chasing them with the camera and the puppet to tell them it's rude to talk on the cell phone) that make critiques about world politics (the World politics in 30 seconds, for instance) or capitalism less about the critique than just making viewers feel unsettled. In this way, it's basically just a smarter version of Jackass.
> Second, Stewart's show's primary intent is to shape public opinion. It
> is funny (and I personally love it), but it is first and foremost a
> political show.
I'll agree that Stewart earnestly believes in the importance of paying attention to politics. But if there is a primary target, it is the public sphere itself. So making fun of the distractions of the 24 hour news channels and the dominance of the right wing in American culture. These are the most prominent, visible sources of power in the political discourse. Colbert is definitely more subversive but it is only because of the right wing dominance in culture. In this way he is also easy to misinterpret: irony always leaves the possibility that people will take you seriously.
Stewart's protests to the contrary (i.e., that his show
> is a "fake" news show and that he is just a comedian) are mere cover,
> much of which is necessary given the restrictions on political
> programming by corporate sponsors. He can make his serious political
> points only by pretending he is kidding. I can appreciate that, but I
> think it's pretty obvious Stewart is a political commentator as much if
> not moreso than an entertaining comedian.
>
> The Colbert Report is the same, although Colbert is much more subversive
> and radical than is Stewart. (And Colbert's take on the Chavez U.N.
> speech was much different than was Stewart's...Colbert did not advance
> U.S. propaganda efforts against Chavez.) Like Stewart, Colbert has to
> turn his politics into jokes to stay on the air.
Yes but that doesn't mean either of them (or any of their "collaborators") really has a strong, well researched, completely thought out vision of what politics should be. I also think niether of them want to be in a position where they go out of their depth and get "owned" on the air. In this I think Colbert is definitely better--he seems to have a more robust set of political convictions and, if nothing else, he began his comedic career in improv which saves him quite often. In any case, both of them have their work cut out for them. The shows take frequent "vacations" but I suspect much of that is to film the segments that appear in the middle of the show.
So when they are on air, they have to be able to digest an entire day's news, as well as the media's image of that news, to come up with clever things to say to poke fun at this and, perhaps, come up with political points, and to prepare for the interviews--oh yeah, and to make it funny and entertaining, since that's what the audience is expecting.
They don't have a news program's staff, and I doubt that people are hired for the writing team of either show based on their expertise in a certain area of world or national politics. I'm sure they try hard to understand the issues at stake, and most of the time they still do a better job than the so-called real news. But much of that is because they come at it with more of a sarcastic view that, however more accurate it might be, doesn't require the kind of rigor that would be necessary to make similar statements under the banner of "news" or even "politics."
ON the other hand, though they can assume their audience is somewhat savvy, they are also limited in their jokes and commentary by what they assume to be their audience's understanding. That and the fact that they really only have 20 minutes to do all of this. That is how long they take to film it as well. They take breaks where the commercials are inserted, but nothing is done in more than one take. In many cases this means finding a clip from the mass media (since they don't have their own news staff) or some hook to explain and inform the audience of what they are talking about before they can expect the joke to work.
If you watch either
> show, though, it's the political commentary that gets the most crowd
> reaction. And, as is obvious upon any reflection, that is the reason
> why any of us watch it.
But, again, this is less because anyone there has any agreement about what should come next. The reason they are able to get laughs on political points is because the politics of the moment are so absurd, not because there is some insurgent anarchist movement swelling from the streets into the studio. I understand the anxiety over what this show could be, but I think it is misplaced. I'll admit that the show is popular and it seems to lean left--which makes it disappointing when it fails to make a salient point that seems so obvious from a leftist perspective. But the latter is not widespread and, unless you had some evidence that Stewart is a closet communist or a reader of some Leftist daily newspaper, I don't know why you'd expect him or any of these writers to make those leaps. In this, you seem to give them a lot more credit--or leftist interpretations of the world more widespread legitimacy--than is due. Moreover, you seem to be picking the least interesting moments of the program--or the biggest gaffes--as evidence for it's purile-ness. You're entitled to think that by all means, but there are plenty of moments that, at least in the context of US politics, are useful. And, to go back to what Doug said, it is, after all, on Comedy Central. We're in big fucking trouble if the one place we're looking for subversive commentary is on the comedy network.
On the other hand, I'd say that the fact that they don't take themselves too seriously is part of what makes them appealing. One of the best things about the program, in my opinion, is the artiface of the on the scene reporter and the deflation of the notion of their expertise (or even co-presence at the site of the conflict or events.)
The in-studio expert is equally parodied. These two characters in the traditional newscast do much to bolster the authority of the program. Making these the least reliable narrators on the program would be very subversive if viewers transferred this understanding to their viewing of mainstream newscasts.
The other thing that they do well is to compile clips and synthesize what has been said by either the TV media as a whole or, for instance, by people in the Bush administration. Niether of these are necessarily subversive, but when there is such a commitment to flushing events and statements down the memory hole by the state, with most of the TV media having little memory of any of it, it is relatively radical to simply have the record on display. None of this requires that Stewart have a coherent political ideology or even one that is all that different from the average news reporter. It just requires that they pay attention and have a nice archive of C-Span and cable news footage to draw upon. In my opinion, it is a scandal that this is left up to the comedy show. They might have more time for agitation if they weren't so busy keeping the religious zealots from taking over the planet.