Doc's Talk: Jon Stewart Does Cable News (again)

Monday, June 20, 2011

Jon Stewart Does Cable News (again)

Pete Machera

Jon Stewart is back in the news, appearing today on Fox News Sunday. The widely accepted view is that his political satire is a boon to our democracy, and totally divorced from partisanship. Stewart gained visibility from a previous appearance on cable news, a 2004 debate against Tucker Carlson, which elevated Stewart as a paragon of integrity. Let's review that fateful exchange: On October 15, 2004, Stewart appeared on Crossfire. He was arrogant and insulting from the beginning of the interview. He proceeded to lecture co-hosts Carlson and Paul Begala on why they are "hurting America." Carlson pointed out how contradictory Stewart's sanctimonious diatribe was -- he had accused Crossfire and similar shows of being too hard on politicians, while in the next breath saying that they are "part of [politicians] strategies." Perhaps frustrated by his own non-sequitur, Stewart resorted to calling the hosts of Crossfire "political...hacks." Carlson, justifiably offended, saw fit to point out "something valuable I think that we do that I'd like to see you [do]...when politicians come on it's nice to get them to answer a question. I want to contrast our questions with some that asked John Kerry recently." Here Stewart, sensing he is about to be rhetorically obliterated, falls back on his trusty "it's just a comedy show" defense. Nonetheless, Carlson proceeds to quote Stewart's ridiculous questions to then presidential candidate, John Kerry: "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?"

From here the Crossfire appearance degenerates. Begala points out that while Stewart accuses Crossfire of showing issues in black and white, it's a debate show, hence it's supposed to be an argument. Stewart continues to lecture Carlson and Begala about their "responsibilities," while continuing to exempt himself from any because he has a "comedy show." Carlson mocks Stewart's preachy tone adeptly. Stewart, sensing how untenable his position is, and sensing that he is being made a fool of, calls Carlson a "dick." Mind you, this is after he contrasted The Daily Show favorably to Crossfire because of The Daily Show's "civil discourse." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html).

And because Stewart called Carlson a "dick," he was deemed by pop-culture to have won the debate handily. A cursory glance at the transcript reveals Stewart to have been out-witted and out-classed by Mr. Carlson. But never-mind that. Pop culture has spoken.

I am reminded of this by Mr. Stewart's appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. They engaged in an interesting dialogue about whether Jon Stewart was hiding behind the moniker "comedian" whenever he is criticized, while in fact his "comedy" has such a transparent political bent so as to overwhelm its function as humor. Stewart's response was almost Orwellian: "There is no question that I don't tell the whole story; but I don't not tell the whole story based on a partisan ideological agenda." Stewart suffers under the illusion, articulated in Bernie Goldberg's Bias, that he is not partisan, simply because the bias is so engrained in his worldview.

Wallace states the obvious: "I think your agenda is more out there, and that you're pushing more of an agenda than you pretend to."

Stewart responds, "but it's absurdity. It's about absurdity and corruption. That is the agenda that we push."

Stewart does utilize absurdity as a function of his satire; however, his satire always aims in a certain direction. Rush Limbaugh also utilizes satire (and did so long before Stewart entered the game). Can we then conclude that Mr. Limbaugh is not partisan, but rather a disinterested comedian? In terms of the function of both of their comedies, there is little difference. Both Limbaugh and Stewart satirize their political opponents, and both appear to be rooting for their team. It's just that Rush admits it.

The next question is, so what? Mr. Stewart is free to use comedy to advance his viewpoints as much as he would like. If millions of people find him entertaining and believe he is "speaking truth to power," what is the problem?

There are two problems:

1.) Stewart is a hypocrite; he throws stones from a very glass house. There is nothing morally superior about The Daily Show as compared to Crossfire, or any other show on Fox News which he deems unworthy and unethical. To compare these shows morally is to engulf into questions which are, as defined by Socrates, the very essence of politics itself: what is right and wrong? Because Stewart views the New York Times' liberal assumptions to be "right," there is no question of bias or immorality. Because Fox News is "wrong," they are illegitimate.

2.) The influence of Stewart's show is insidious because he presents himself as a neutral observer. His audience, while it may include many highly educated viewers, also includes many young people who don't generally follow politics. Their only information on issues of government comes from what is delivered on his show. In order for this segment of his audience to be "in" on the humor, they have to also be "in" on the accepted premise of his jokes: Republicans are the target. Such a straw-man approach creates a political discourse which is easy enough for even the most ignorant to participate.

The irony is that Mr. Carlson is a more balanced and disinterested commentator than both Jon Stewart, and those whom Stewart criticizes with such ferocity. Hence, Tucker Carlson for a time was able to maintain a show on MSNBC, ultimately leaving for Fox News where he serves as a contributor and founding the Daily Caller. In his MSNBC show he remained unpredictable and independent. It would be unfathomable to imagine Tucker currently holding a show on MSNBC, because the network has since been purified to only include those of the one true faith (Scarborough not withstanding). In this sense, Mr. Carlson represents an open-mindedness that is no longer viable for any network, whereas Stewart fits in well to the narrow ideological landscape which currently defines cable-news-style political discourse.

1 comment:

Mark said...: That was actually a pretty good interview compared to O'reily.; 8:12 AM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk