Jon Stewart vs. CNN
A couple of nights ago, the guest on the Daily Show was Anderson Cooper (I'm not going to link to some YouTube clip of it either - find it out there if you want to.) who seemed to be set up for yet another "Jon Stewart hates cable news" type of interview. Cooper seemed to be doing his best to maintain a relatively high standard of discourse during the interview, but made a blunder similar to the one made by the Crossfire guy back in that interview (hosted by Crossfire, again, find the clip out there on the internet if you want a refresher (I didn't actually give myself a refresher on either of these interviews, I'm just trying to go ahead and type out what my musings were on the bus to work the next day (following the Stewart v. Cooper interview))) wherein having been accused of Stewart to pandering to the Fox News demographic with swoopy graphics and issue-ADD, Cooper shoots back "Yeah, well you use the swoopy graphics too!"
Which, as usual, seems to lead to another easy point for Stewart, in that, as he says "But we're a parody." I like for that point to be won, as it usually is, except that, upon a bit more reflection, I fear that it drastically undermines the position of the Daily Show, or perhaps more realistically just reminds the thoughtful viewer of the fact that there is no hope for subversion in the ideology-drenched hyperreality of cable television. (An aside here, as I've just made the decision to not go back and proofread or revise this posting before I post it, because anytime I let myself type something like "subversion in the ideology-drenched hyperreality" I should really probably make sure not to take myself seriously.)
That is to say, Stewarts general operating thesis is that the cable news movement has destroyed any potential for open public discourse on issues that matter (and I'm of the opinion that the agnostic stance clearly sees the difference between Gay Marriage and North Korea). And the sense of "what's the use, then?" has been building since Bush won (probably stole (search for yourself about missing votes and turned-away Democrats in Ohio in '04 (here's a start (okay, I didn't read the whole document either))) his second term in office. That is, it doesn't make a bit of fucking difference how many journalists and media pundits or whatever Stewart can pick apart, because of the limits of operating within that same sphere.
Parody is dependent on context, which is probably why it is only an aspect of satire, as opposed to any sort of fundament for subversive art. Stewart probably got Crossfire canceled, but he didn't silence the voices involved or effect in any lasting way the landscape of Middle-Minded political entertainment.
I think my point is the Angry Jon Stewart is getting to be less and less entertaining because it so tinged with the fatalist realization that it ain't gonna stop the wars, make the old young again, or lower the price of bread...
Which, as usual, seems to lead to another easy point for Stewart, in that, as he says "But we're a parody." I like for that point to be won, as it usually is, except that, upon a bit more reflection, I fear that it drastically undermines the position of the Daily Show, or perhaps more realistically just reminds the thoughtful viewer of the fact that there is no hope for subversion in the ideology-drenched hyperreality of cable television. (An aside here, as I've just made the decision to not go back and proofread or revise this posting before I post it, because anytime I let myself type something like "subversion in the ideology-drenched hyperreality" I should really probably make sure not to take myself seriously.)
That is to say, Stewarts general operating thesis is that the cable news movement has destroyed any potential for open public discourse on issues that matter (and I'm of the opinion that the agnostic stance clearly sees the difference between Gay Marriage and North Korea). And the sense of "what's the use, then?" has been building since Bush won (probably stole (search for yourself about missing votes and turned-away Democrats in Ohio in '04 (here's a start (okay, I didn't read the whole document either))) his second term in office. That is, it doesn't make a bit of fucking difference how many journalists and media pundits or whatever Stewart can pick apart, because of the limits of operating within that same sphere.
Parody is dependent on context, which is probably why it is only an aspect of satire, as opposed to any sort of fundament for subversive art. Stewart probably got Crossfire canceled, but he didn't silence the voices involved or effect in any lasting way the landscape of Middle-Minded political entertainment.
I think my point is the Angry Jon Stewart is getting to be less and less entertaining because it so tinged with the fatalist realization that it ain't gonna stop the wars, make the old young again, or lower the price of bread...
4 Comments:
I think I basically agree with you here; the Daily Show isn't going to change anything, clearly. I think I disagree with you as far as thinking that's an unfortunate thing. It's just not what TV shows do, or what satire does.
I don't think satire in general (or "subversive art," for that mattter) has a lot of power to actually change things. It's just gallows humor for social elites.
I do think it's really strange how these cable news types get into arguments with Jon Stewart like he's one of them.
Here's why I don't think Bush stole the '04 election: the theories about that didn't make a huge dent on the solidly-liberal-but-not-hard-left political blogs I read, and the commentary I recall settled into a "not stolen" answer. I'm pretty certain that if there was some actual substance to it, it would have cleared that filter.
I think it's fair to say, though, that the news-entertainment industry does change things or perhaps, more correctly, actively prevent change. If the role of a critical parody is merely to present another aspect of entertainment, if it can't effect change or provide an opportunity for discourse within the medium, than it is useless as parody.
Or, at the very worst, if it can't maintain it's central premise (that its important to parody the ridiculous and destructive monster of American new media) than the satire (even if it isn't even trying to effect change) undermines its own context.
Thereby making it unfunny.
I don't think the central premise of the Daily Show is that it's important to parody the media. I think it's just that the media is laughably bad.
This context will not be undermined for a long time because, as we both agree, the media isn't going to get better any time soon.
I still don't follow why satire is only funny if it can change something.
I'm not saying that satire at large can't be funny if it isn't affecting change. I'm saying, that specifically, that Angry Jon Stewart isn't funny, or even rewarding anymore, because in the context of the sludge that is political televised entertainment, the parody has lost any hope of making a difference, and that pretext is essential to that specific mode of the satire taht is the Daily Show.
Whether or not that effects the show as whole I'll be a bit more lenient on - its definitely still one of the funniest shows on the TV these days. However, Jon Stewart needs to find a new angle for his more vitriolic attacks on CNN and the like, as I argue that his tone carries more than just a desire to ridicule, but also a desire to destruct (via deconstruction).
Post a Comment
<< Home