Track down his interview with Sen. Rick Santorum when it goes online tomorrow.
It's amazing. Santorum is so much Stewart's political opposite that the mention of his name elicited boos from Stewart's audience.
Yet Stewart (1) actually READ his book before the interview, (2) made a well-articulated opposing argument, (3) LET THE MAN MAKE HIS OWN POINTS, and (4) kept it funny and entertaining.
It's number three that just blew me away. Could you ever see something like that on a show like Crossfire or The O'Reilly Factor? A host who uses his hostly powers, not to make his own pet arguments, advance his allies, slap down his opponents, and create a half-hour of senseless conflict ... but rather to create an atmosphere where BOTH sides can make their own points, feel like they have been heard, and yet to provide enough tough questions that the guest is forced to think and dig deep into his own position, and the audience comes away smarter and better-informed about their opposition, rather than dumber and either self-congratulatory or righteously indignant.
Where can we find more people like this? Is it just HIM? Is he the only person on television who can invite a guest to share a political view that he vehemently disagrees with, and yet give the guy a fair shake?
Jon Stewart is the best thing that has happened to American political discourse, at least in the past decade. He needs a lot more people to start watching his show. Preferably the competition, looking for pointers.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Good interview, although Jon went pretty easy on Santorum (I readily admit that this may be my own political biases speaking). Normally, he is much sharper about catching his opponents in logical fallacies and circular arguments. For example, just a few weeks ago, he thoroughly destroyed one guest's very similar argument about the degradation of popular culture by pointing out that naysayers have been bemoaning the depravity of the "new generation" forever, without a corresponding destruction of civilization as we know it.
Still, it was a civil discussion that allowed for both sides to make their case, and it puts the final nail in the coffin for the claim that Stewart is blindly partisan.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I think he's okay. He's better than most commedians.
But that's just it. Whenever I watch him I'm forced to remember that he's a commedian. While I don't often like the 'set up' of Cross Fire or O'Reilly I watch those (well, I don't usually, but you know what I mean) for much different reasons.
If I want a serious discussion I don't tune to Jon Stewart. It's when I want to laugh that I watch him.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
How do you define a "serious discussion", then? Is a comedian, by his nature, incapable of having one, in your view?
Many people feel that when someone on their side refuses to skewer and humiliate their opponent, they are "going soft" on them. I call it "playing fair".
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, what I mean is that Jon Stewart's main purpose is political humour, not political analysis. He does 'get at the issues' but his show seems more about using politics for humour than using humour for politics.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
And I suppose I didn't answer your question, did I?
Edit: I think that, of course a comedian can have a serious political discussion. Obviously not all of them do - but then, some "serious" political commentators never have a serious political discussion.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Some of the best political discussions I have ever seen are filled with humor.
Do We Agree is the transcript of a debate of economic policy between G. K. Chesterton and Bernard Shaw with Hilaire Belloc moderating. It's quite funny and quite serious simultaneously, with the men involved being sheer rhetorical geniuses at the top of their game.
There's plenty of room for both.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I really adore this man. I really, really do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've been saying it for years now: the best political interviews in America are happening on Comedy Central. I think it may be precisely because some people believe he's only going for humor that he's able to not only attract high-profile guests but also get away with asking them questions that they would refuse to answer on, say, Crossfire. I fondly remember two or three interviews in which someone's attempted to spin him and Stewart has cut in, dipping his head deferentially, to say, "Okay, yeah, but that's all pretty much bulls**t, isn't it?"
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Yeah, I loved the Santorum interview. I was as surprised as anyone that he appeared on the show, and I thought the interview went really, really well.
And Tarrsk, Stewart did bring that point up, or at least something like it. He pointed out that there was a time when you absolutely couldn't say the f-word on a tv screen, but segregation was acceptable for half the country.
That is, of course, my biggest bafflement with those that claim Western culture is slipping into a moral pit. Sure, we all saw Janet Jackson's nipple, but we beat de jure segregation and a host of other real evils.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That Shaw/Chesterton "debate" is marvelous. And I think it says something about England that the debate is about, of all things, whether workers should in fact control the means of production or merely have the product of their production distributed evenly amongst them. *grin*
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'm sorry, I never tried to imply that humour doesn't have a place in political discussion.
Stewart's funny and he deals with most of the issues I'm interested in. I guess I can't really ask for much more, huh?
It's just too bad that 90% of his competition is exceptionally dull. He is refreshing after watching/listening to the rest.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
He had an interview on NPR the other day. I didn't catch it, but I heard from a friend that it was quite good. One of the questions they asked him was something along the lines of: "Do you have as much fun on your show as you seem to be having?"
His answer, which didn't surprise me, was "no, it actually really sucks." He's a very, very intelligent man, IMHO, and it must indeed suck to watch the politics and mainstream media, see how bad they are, and then make jokes about it.
Has anyone else bought Indecision 2004? It's awesome!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I remember seeing a live interview with him a few years ago. I was blown away at how intelligent, articulate, and funny he was without scriptwriters.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: That is, of course, my biggest bafflement with those that claim Western culture is slipping into a moral pit. Sure, we all saw Janet Jackson's nipple, but we beat de jure segregation and a host of other real evils.
I totally agree Foust. Morality is not decaying.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Has anyone else bought Indecision 2004? It's awesome!
That was great, sadly a flood in my basement ruined mine Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I thought his interview with Santorum was fantastic. Comedian or not, Jon Stewart has some well-reasoned, brilliant arguments.
I also liked the Tour De Fr-Lance bit.
I have a small gripe. The show could be a bit more even-handed. For instance, Jon Stewart usually throws soft-balls if he's interviewing a left-leaning guest. But he sort of takes on the right-leaning guests. It's all done respectfully, and I can understand it, knowing which way Stewart leans himself. And phony attempts at fairness usually result in crappy shows, but still.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Very true. I saw the interview last night, and I was surprised at how well it went. It was enlightening because Rick Santorum made arguements that I hadn't heard before and Stewart actually let the guy speak. He's an all around cool guy and makes his points without resorting to the party playbook (while cutting down those that do).
/Stewart '08. Or let him moderate a debate or something.
--j_k
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:/Stewart '08. Or let him moderate a debate or something.
Hmmm... if Ronald and Arnold can do it, why not Jon?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I would love to have a debate run by someone who won't let the canidates run wild.
I would also love to see the canidates take a general knowledege test. Something similar to the test for elementary school teachers, with a bit more of international politics, history, and economics. The test should be live, on camera, so that we can get a feel for their ability to cope under stress while in the public's eye.
Jon Stewart can be the annoucer and quiz master. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I thought he did a bang up job in the interview. He's really at the top of the game right now, something that should be making program directors at the news networks a bit nervous.
And yep, I'd vote Stewart '08.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I disagree that Stewart is not primarily a political commentator. The segments of the show that deal with comedy are usually done by the correspondents.
But his "monologue" opening segment and his interviews are seldom rooted in pure comedy. He's saying what everyone is already thinking, he calls a spade a spade, he calls bullshit bullshit, and that doesn't mean his commentary is any less valuable or serious than the "real" political commentators. Just that it's wrapped differently. It's entertaining sure, but if all you see is the entertainment and not what's underneath, you're missing the point.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
One of the best moments on the show last week was the day after John Roberts was nominated.
Ed Helms: "Liberals are outraged by Bush's choice; they have been for weeks."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just saw the interview with Rick Santorum.
First of all, he isn't the paragon of EVIL that I thought he was, he actually seems fairly human.
Second, I thought, rather than an interview where Jon should have zinged him or cornered him, it came off much better as simply a back and forth of ideas. It was far more informative like that, than it might have been if Jon was simply trying to nail him to the wall.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And I think it says something about England that the debate is about, of all things, whether workers should in fact control the means of production or merely have the product of their production distributed evenly amongst them. *grin*
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)