PDA

View Full Version : Adieu Jon Stewart!


Kimon
08-06-2015, 11:37 PM
Anyone else hoping that he gets bored in a few years and runs for the Senate in New Jersey? Or maybe gets bored a bit sooner than that and saves the party from having to nominate Hillary...

GonzoTheGreat
08-07-2015, 04:09 AM
Come to think of it, I don't think the French have a word for "adieu".

Terez
08-07-2015, 06:26 AM
When Dom was helping me with French translation, he always translated "Adieu". I'm like, dude, we know what it means. Since then I've dealt with a lot of translations into other languages. None of them translate it.

But the better term here is #JonVoyage. I doubt he will run for office any time soon; he wanted more flexibility, and running for office doesn't exactly bring it.

GonzoTheGreat
08-07-2015, 06:43 AM
I doubt he will run for office any time soon; he wanted more flexibility, and running for office doesn't exactly bring it.
Are you sure?
Sarah Palin sure suggests that flexibility is compatible with running for office.

I don't think that Stewart is any less competent than Palin is.

Daekyras
08-07-2015, 09:44 AM
Come to think of it, I don't think the French have a word for "adieu".

"Adieu" is a french word. It is what they say when they sneeze. Ah...ah...ah...ADIEU!!!!

fdsaf3
08-07-2015, 12:39 PM
I don't mean this as disrespect, but I'm not particularly upset or moved by this. Jon Stewart, for me, represents one of the biggest problems we have in the current social/political landscape.

My problem in a nutshell is this: it's easy to sit behind a desk and point out (satirically or not) the flaws in the system or mistakes made by actors within that system. I don't mean to insult Stewart personally; he seems like an intelligent and capable person in the sense that he was able to make a career out of doing this for 16 years. But on its face, pointing out flaws is ridiculously easy. Know what's really, really hard? Actually solving them. That's one of the things that bugs me about Jon Stewart et al in that ilk: they don't do anything to solve any problems. It's like if you had a loud, vocal peanut gallery sitting in your house when you were trying do do a complex DIY project. They would mock you for all your mistakes and point out all the ways in which you could have done your project better. Do they offer to help? No.

Some might say that such criticism is necessary. I'm pretty neutral about that claim. On one hand, yes, I think politicians and the political system in general need to be held accountable. On the other hand, I don't think that comedic satire is a vehicle for meaningful or substantial dialogue on any complex issues.

The other big problem I have with Jon Stewart is that he reveled in the fact that he was a comedy show pretending to be a newscast. He got to play both sides: nothing he said could be taken seriously because it was a comedy show, but he was able to talk about really complex and pressing issues because it was a news-y show. In one of the more memorable quotes from Stewart (and I'm badly paraphrasing here), he rebutted criticism of his show by saying "yeah, but you're getting your news from a comedy show". It's too convenient for him to hide behind the shield of "I'm running a comedy show; you can't take me seriously" when pressed or criticized. For me, parts of the Daily Show were certainly journalistic enough that they should have been held to the applicable standards which all journalistic outlets are held.

From a cultural standpoint, I think what you end up with from shows like The Daily Show or John Oliver's show are a cohort of people, mostly young and left-leaning, who think they are informed about a subject because they saw it covered by John Oliver or Jon Stewart on TV. In my opinion, it's not helpful or constructive in any way to present such an obviously biased take on a complex and divisive issue without acknowledging that bias.

I don't think this kind of TV programming is the Worst Thing Ever. I just think there are better ways to go about doing what those shows are trying to do.

GonzoTheGreat
08-07-2015, 01:10 PM
I agree with a lot of that, but I do think it is entirely mis-aimed.
You should instead fault the politicians who fail to do the job they're supposedly elected for. You should fault the news programmes that fail to do the job of dispersing information. And, most of all, you should fail the public which can't be bothered to pay attention to anyone or anything more serious than Stewart (and even he didn't have anywhere near a majority of the total public, as far as I know).

Stewart was the best you had when it came to following politics. That doesn't mean he was very good at it (he didn't really want or try to be); it is an indictment of your entire culture instead.

fdsaf3
08-07-2015, 01:19 PM
What is this? I agree with something Gonzo said? The world must be ending....

Nah, I kid.

But really, I do agree with you. I think it says something that the most influential voice in shaping the political views of the young generation for the past 16 years has been a comedian playing a news reporter on TV. I think it says a lot about us as a society when people would rather sit on the sidelines and make snarky remarks than dig in and get their hands dirty trying to solve really, really difficult and challenging problems.

I think politicians need to have their feet held to the fire. I think the public should be more informed. I don't think the news does a good job of that, so I understand why the niche Stewart filled exists. I just don't particularly think what he's doing is helpful or constructive.

Kimon
08-07-2015, 01:20 PM
I don't mean this as disrespect, but I'm not particularly upset or moved by this. Jon Stewart, for me, represents one of the biggest problems we have in the current social/political landscape.

My problem in a nutshell is this: it's easy to sit behind a desk and point out (satirically or not) the flaws in the system or mistakes made by actors within that system. I don't mean to insult Stewart personally; he seems like an intelligent and capable person in the sense that he was able to make a career out of doing this for 16 years. But on its face, pointing out flaws is ridiculously easy. Know what's really, really hard? Actually solving them. That's one of the things that bugs me about Jon Stewart et al in that ilk: they don't do anything to solve any problems. It's like if you had a loud, vocal peanut gallery sitting in your house when you were trying do do a complex DIY project. They would mock you for all your mistakes and point out all the ways in which you could have done your project better. Do they offer to help? No.

Some might say that such criticism is necessary. I'm pretty neutral about that claim. On one hand, yes, I think politicians and the political system in general need to be held accountable. On the other hand, I don't think that comedic satire is a vehicle for meaningful or substantial dialogue on any complex issues.

The other big problem I have with Jon Stewart is that he reveled in the fact that he was a comedy show pretending to be a newscast. He got to play both sides: nothing he said could be taken seriously because it was a comedy show, but he was able to talk about really complex and pressing issues because it was a news-y show. In one of the more memorable quotes from Stewart (and I'm badly paraphrasing here), he rebutted criticism of his show by saying "yeah, but you're getting your news from a comedy show". It's too convenient for him to hide behind the shield of "I'm running a comedy show; you can't take me seriously" when pressed or criticized. For me, parts of the Daily Show were certainly journalistic enough that they should have been held to the applicable standards which all journalistic outlets are held.

From a cultural standpoint, I think what you end up with from shows like The Daily Show or John Oliver's show are a cohort of people, mostly young and left-leaning, who think they are informed about a subject because they saw it covered by John Oliver or Jon Stewart on TV. In my opinion, it's not helpful or constructive in any way to present such an obviously biased take on a complex and divisive issue without acknowledging that bias.

I don't think this kind of TV programming is the Worst Thing Ever. I just think there are better ways to go about doing what those shows are trying to do.

Have the courage to admit that your complaint is grounded in political differences rather than fair criticism. His job wasn't to fix the problems. His was to draw awareness to them. You just disagreed with what he considered to be problems.

fdsaf3
08-07-2015, 02:13 PM
Have the intellectual honesty to admit that criticism in this day and age can be based on something other than political bias.

I'm not a person who identifies strongly with one political umbrella or another. I'm apolitical in the sense that I don't align with traditionally "left" or "right" categorizations. I can't say I'm entirely unpolitical, though: I'm invested in policy issues, and I'm determined to work on solutions for those which I find salient.

Regardless of political bent, sitting behind a desk and pointing out flaws is significantly easier than trying to produce solutions. My political views are irrelevant in making this observation.

But keep making vapid, entirely off-base assertions about me if it makes you feel better.

Kimon
08-07-2015, 02:25 PM
Have the intellectual honesty to admit that criticism in this day and age can be based on something other than political bias.

I'm not a person who identifies strongly with one political umbrella or another. I'm apolitical in the sense that I don't align with traditionally "left" or "right" categorizations. I can't say I'm entirely unpolitical, though: I'm invested in policy issues, and I'm determined to work on solutions for those which I find salient.

Regardless of political bent, sitting behind a desk and pointing out flaws is significantly easier than trying to produce solutions. My political views are irrelevant in making this observation.

But keep making vapid, entirely off-base assertions about me if it makes you feel better.

He was a comedian and journalist, not a politician. He wasn't in a position to fix the problem, only to draw the public's attention to them, encouraging them bring pressure to bear on the issue, thus forcing the hand of the politicians who can effect change. Not that that always works, but that was the limit of his role in the process. Criticizing him for that is ridiculous. If you didn't like what he was saying there were plenty of other options on tv for you to watch.

connabard
08-07-2015, 02:40 PM
I am just going to chime in and say that John Olivers LWT and John Stewarts DS are very, very different.

Oliver takes a subject and ACTUALLY informs, not just criticizes, while making jokes about it so subjects like Fifa's corruption or low-cost tickets really permanently destroying lower-class minorities lives aren't just depressing to hear about.

Stewart, and no disrespect because I enjoy TDS but rather just points out flaws in comedic ways. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be more than that, but LWT is certainly much more than that.

Kimon
08-07-2015, 03:26 PM
I am just going to chime in and say that John Olivers LWT and John Stewarts DS are very, very different.

Oliver takes a subject and ACTUALLY informs, not just criticizes, while making jokes about it so subjects like Fifa's corruption or low-cost tickets really permanently destroying lower-class minorities lives aren't just depressing to hear about.

Stewart, and no disrespect because I enjoy TDS but rather just points out flaws in comedic ways. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be more than that, but LWT is certainly much more than that.

Part of that is likely a difference in interest, part a difference in format. Oliver focuses far more on societal issues of corruption and far more on international topics. He also benefits from being able to avoid the need for commercials, which allows him to go into one topic in far more depth since he doesn't have to work in two short segments, as Stewart did, then the rest of the time for a focused interview. Both shows were (are in Oliver's case) great, but definitely have a different feel. Same is true of Colbert, as his show was much more a satiric form of comedy. It will be interesting to see how far his new CBS show will contrast from that. Along a similar line are two other good HBO news-type shows, one more pure news, but on very focused topics, Vice, the other more similar to the feel of the Daily Show - Bill Maher's Real Time with Bill Maher. That last quite similar in format to his old Comedy Central show, Politically Incorrect. All of those are entertaining places for news, but to stay well-rounded, obviously necessary to still peruse more pure news sources - BBC, Al Jazeera America, NYT, etc. Both Fox and MSNBC are pretty worthless. Far more so than any of those comedy type news shows.

I do have to admit, that I've come to like those other shows more than Stewart's, although I still really liked his show to the end - I think it was largely due to the declining quality of his correspondents. This however was meant as a panegyric, not a place for fdsaf to vent his petty criticisms of the show and its achievements.

Ivhon
08-07-2015, 03:35 PM
While he certainly criticized and highlighted politicians, is biggest beef was with journalism itself. And there he offered solutions frequently

fdsaf3
08-07-2015, 03:59 PM
He was a comedian and journalist, not a politician. He wasn't in a position to fix the problem, only to draw the public's attention to them, encouraging them bring pressure to bear on the issue, thus forcing the hand of the politicians who can effect change. Not that that always works, but that was the limit of his role in the process. Criticizing him for that is ridiculous. If you didn't like what he was saying there were plenty of other options on tv for you to watch.

You are making my case for me. This is exactly why I think shows like Stewart's are bullshit. It's easy (like, really, really easy) to sit on the sideline and make fun. The significantly harder prospect is solving those problems. Everything you're saying is exactly why I don't think shows like Stewart's are productive or add anything of value. If you can, read what you just wrote here and compare it to what I've been saying all along. We are entirely in step with much of what we're saying here. The difference is in the conclusions we're drawing.

This however was meant as a panegyric, not a place for fdsaf to vent his petty criticisms of the show and its achievements.

I'm trying to have a level-headed discussion here. Truly. You are getting butthurt because you feel like it's your mission to white-knight defend someone or something that you think I'm unfairly attacking. You tried to dismiss my views at first with the woefully incorrect assertion that I simply don't agree politically with Jon Stewart. Now you're calling me petty? Because I have the audacity to be critical of something you support? Interesting. The way you're responding here says a lot about you. If you feel like I'm pissing on your parade, please feel free to let me know how many days I have to wait after he retires before we can continue this discussion. Hopefully next time you can figure out how to be a bit more mature about responding to others who don't agree with you.

connabard
08-07-2015, 04:13 PM
I'm not sure why you think Stewarts show NEEDS to be more than just entertainment; poking fun at politicians doing dumb shit.
It's perfectly fine just being that and it doesn't need more to be respected, it's doing its job perfectly fine (though as pointed out, declining quality of correspondents)

Could he do something of more actual value? Maybe, and maybe that's what he's endeavoring to do as he leaves TDS, but the fact remains it's a show that preceded him and is succeeding him, and it's on Comedy Central. It's a comedy show. It is not, and this is an objective fact, a news source nor a journalistic source, and it shouldn't be treated as one. Its sole purpose is to make fun of the politics of the country it is based in, not to inform, not inspire change, and not to correct the political landscape of America.

Kimon
08-07-2015, 10:04 PM
You are making my case for me. This is exactly why I think shows like Stewart's are bullshit. It's easy (like, really, really easy) to sit on the sideline and make fun.


No it's not. This is a skill, and regardless of your apparent contempt for what he has done, clearly he has both influenced the discourse and advanced the careers of many other gifted comedians. This was not something that anyone could have accomplished if simply provided with the opportunity.

I'm trying to have a level-headed discussion here. Truly. You are getting butthurt because you feel like it's your mission to white-knight defend someone or something that you think I'm unfairly attacking. You tried to dismiss my views at first with the woefully incorrect assertion that I simply don't agree politically with Jon Stewart. Now you're calling me petty? Because I have the audacity to be critical of something you support? Interesting. The way you're responding here says a lot about you. If you feel like I'm pissing on your parade, please feel free to let me know how many days I have to wait after he retires before we can continue this discussion. Hopefully next time you can figure out how to be a bit more mature about responding to others who don't agree with you.

Were your diction less puerile I would be more inclined to believe you.

fdsaf3
08-08-2015, 03:53 AM
[quote=kimon]Were your diction less puerile I would be more inclined to believe you.]

You're going to accuse me of childishness? In light of everything you've said here, that's an extremely laughable claim. Whatever gets you to sleep at night, boss.

I'm done trying to discuss this, or anything else, with you from a rational perspective. If you want to get butthurt and call me childish, that's whatever to me. Whatever floats your boat, my man. But thanks for confirming to me that you have an absolute inability to discuss topics at a rational or logical level.

GonzoTheGreat
08-08-2015, 05:06 AM
It's easy (like, really, really easy) to sit on the sideline and make fun.
Citation needed.

Or, rather, the names of a dozen others who did as well at this as Stewart did. There must have been lots of them; considering how successful the show was, I am sure people tried to copy it.