|
||||||||
| Written by Rick
Ellis, Tuesday, October 19th, 2004 I suspect even the most optimistic observer would agree that this election season has not been the high point for informed, rational political discourse. The increased competition between the cable news channels and an increasingly shrill partisan slant from both sides of the discussion has left the average viewer feeling as if they've been beaten like a pinata all year. The typical exchange involves the anchor (or host) throwing out a topic--more likely than not a topic that is really nothing more than today's talking point from one of the parties. A couple of guests come on, one from each side, and they proceed to proclaim their guy is perfect for five minutes. Geez, I feel more informed already. To be fair, the networks generally understand that the current model of broadcast news isn't the most helpful for viewers. But like a trophy wife who can't stay away from the pool boy, the networks can't resist themselves. They have become convinced that heat is the same as light and that somehow having people plodding relentlessly through their "message" is compelling television--as long as they're arguing while they do it. One of the few bright spots for viewers like myself has been Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show." And while the networks and political parties have acknowleged the show's influence, they don't especially like it. And if their comments are any indication, they really don't understand why the show is so popular. Most comments about the show from old media journalists and political commentators are surprising similiar. They begin with a comment about how funny the show can be, but then quickly move onto the caveat. "It's fake news," they say. "And what does it say about America's young people that so many of them say the show is the place where they get most of their information about politics?" It says that you guys do a crappy job of both informing and entertaining. Complaining the "Daily Show" is nothing but fake news misses the point. Viewers understand that its satire, and its exageration and its sometimes very silly. That's not why we watch. What makes the show really work is that its one of the few places in the media where you can get a real chance to see informed, equal-opportunity political satire. Yes, Stewart is more liberal than not, but that doesn't stop him from slamming Kerry as hard as he does Bush. Stewart, like his viewers, is troubled and often disgusted by the current state of politics. And that distress comes across in every moment of the show. Which is why I wasn't at all surprised when Stewart ripped the media and Tucker Carlson a new one on last Friday's edition of CNN's "Crossfire." His dismay and disgust with the show matches that of his audience. And helps to explain why the audience for cable news reamins primarily male and primarily older. Stewart was booked onto the show to promote his new book, but he almost instantly began complaining about the current state of political discourse on television. Stewart accused the network and the media for being "dishonest" and "doing a disservice" to the American public. Co-host Tucker Carlson wasn't especially happy with the trend of the discussion, and wondered out loud why Stewart coudn't just be funny. He then suggested that Stewart went easy on Senator John Kerry when the candidate was a guest on "The Daily Show," claiming Stewart was Kerry's "Butt boy." Stewart responded by noting that he had asked Kerry about Cambodia, and then unloaded on "Crossfire," calling hosts Carlson and Paul Begala "partisan hacks" and chiding them for not raising the level of discourse on their show beyond sloganeering. The segment ended with Carlson wishing Stewart would be as funny other places as he was on his show, and Stewart mentioning that Carlson was as "big of a dick" on his show as he was everywhere else. Click Here For Part Two |
||||||||
