There was a moment in Monday night’s episode of “The Daily Show” that must rank among the most interesting of the season, perhaps the entire history of the cult “politainment” program. Host Jon Stewart, who has been in fine form of late, was sparring amiably with Ken Buck, the retired Republican congressman from Colorado. They were discussing, quite compellingly, the aftermath of the conviction of Donald Trump and the media’s coverage of the event.
A widely discussed fact about Stewart’s glorious run as host from 1999-2015 was that 12% of online Americans got their news from "The Daily Show." That is to say, a most un-Cronkite-like source was delivering vital information to the nation’s citizenry.
And then this happened: Buck, a former member of the Freedom Caucus, sighed: “We went from Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather to entertainment.” Stewart, a little too cheekily for my taste, riposted: “Why are you looking at me? I had nothing to do with this!”
I’ve watched Stewart’s reaction to that comment a dozen times. I’ve scrutinized his endearing grin. I watched him pause pregnantly, clench, and then move on. And I still can’t figure out if Jon Stewart was owning up to the fact that Jon Stewart had a whole heck of a lot to do with the evolution (or devolution?) of American and global journalism into a form of entertainment.
Comedy Central's “The Daily Show,” with Stewart back in the saddle, at least one night a week, is garnering well-deserved attention and plaudits. It is consistently funny, and Monday’s episode was no exception. Ronnie Cheung, in a cameo, mined comedy gold when he referred to saying the word “Jewish with the hard -ish.” Another visual gag of President Joe Biden as a clueless, '70s-era sit-com character by the name of “Colonel Butters” was brilliant.
Yet as regards his critique of the media, Stewart, disappointingly, is once again “bothsidesing.” We’re right back to the criticism that was leveled against him when he returned to the show’s anchor’s desk in February.
Stewart is the world’s best-known and most skilled practitioner of “politainment,” a genre that scholars define as “the blending of politics and entertainment” in which the “entertainment industry exploits political topics in various entertainment formats.” A widely discussed fact about Stewart’s glorious run as host from 1999-2015 was that 12% of online Americans got their news from "The Daily Show." That is to say, a most un-Cronkite-like source was delivering vital information to the nation’s citizenry.
Stewart’s mastery of the craft inspired many others, including HBO's “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver; Comedy Central's “The Colbert Report;” “The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore;” “The Opposition with Jordan Klepper” and TBS's “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.” (All but Oliver's are no longer on the air.)
Let’s not forget right-wing mock-ups that Stewart clearly influenced, like Fox’s “Watters’ World” and “Gutfeld!” Globally, there have been localized (or glocalized) versions of “The Daily Show” inEgypt, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Palestine, Romania, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, to name just a few.
So, yes, Stewart had something to do with the de-Cronkitization of American journalism and its rather un-Rather-like lurch toward entertainment.
This is why his criticism of the media’s coverage of the Trump trial has left me laughing ... and uneasy. In the April 22 episode, he skewered CNN and MSNBC. “This Trump trial is like an open window on a Greyhound bus full of farts,” complained Stewart as he lit up news organizations for their breathless coverage of Trump’s motorcade and his courtroom facial tics.During the special May 9 episode, Stewart bemoaned “nonstop penis-to-penis coverage” in the aftermath of Stormy Daniels’ testimony.
And Monday night, Stewart took on the media again. After a montage of talking heads claiming “Americans are living in two different realities,” Stewart concluded, “the news media has decided there is no such thing as reality.” He then offered his ontological corrective: “We are all living in one reality, and it can be the news media’s job to litigate the parameters of said reality.”
There are two problems with this claim. The first is that Stewart has made a career out of blurring the parameters of aforesaid reality. Is his show comedy or news? Is he a parodist or an analyst? Are his facts accurate or falsified? Do we take him seriously or are we just supposed to laugh? His wit has contributed to the destabilizing of the very reality he wishes that journalists would restabilize for their viewers.
Stewart is conducting a “moral equivalence” routine on “the media” — as if all media outlets do the same hypocritical thing.
The second is that Stewart is conducting a “moral equivalence” routine on “the media” — as if all media outlets do the same hypocritical thing. On Monday, Stewart razzed his usual liberal targets. He remarked: “For the left, the conviction [of Trump] was an exercise in concealed and controlled glee. Many took the opportunity to over demonstrate how they took no pleasure from this day that they had been dreaming about since childhood.” What followed were back-to-back clips of Lisa Rubin (MSNBC), Erin Burnett (CNN) and Jamal Simmons (CNN) talking about the sadness of the moment for America. But nothing indicates to me, at least, that these commentators were secretly gleeful. Nor are they wrong, by the way.
Yes, there has been some sensationalistic coverage of the Trump trial, on all networks. There have been blatantly partisan interpretations of the event and over attention to silly details (like Trump’s alleged power naps). But there has also been very learned analysis offered by professional jurists. Their work has illuminated the complexities of our legal system and trial proceedings that are difficult for laypersons to understand. The degree of fairness, sophistication and sincerity of analysis from Fox, MSNBC and CNN (Stewart’s primary targets) is vastly different — and it would behoove him to recognize those nuances.
It would also be advisable for Stewart to acknowledge some responsibility for helping to create the media environment he bemoans.
Jacques Berlinerblauis a professor of Jewish civilization at Georgetown University. He has authored numerous books about the subject of secularism, including the recent “Secularism: The Basics” (Routledge). He has also written about American higher education in “Campus Confidential: How College Works, and Doesn’t, For Professors, Parents and Students” (Melville House). With Professor Terrence Johnson, he is a co-author of “Blacks and Jews in America: An Invitation to Dialogue” (Georgetown). His current research concentrates on the nexus between literature and comedy on the one side and cultural conflicts on the other.
