My thoughts on it all

I've watched it several times now (lucky enough to have recorded it when I heard Jon Stewart was on it and so I have it saved) and it is as important a television moment as it was funny and shocking.

It isn't just that Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson a dick. It wasn't just that he caught Begala and Carlson so completely off-guard. It was that he took his credibility and rode it. He was brought on as comic relief, but refused to be their "monkey" as he put it, and he said what so many of us have been saying for so long. While Tucker Carlson tried to fire back about Stewart's "wasted opportunity" when he had John Kerry on, Stewart actually did something more important. He took his rapidly developing role as satirist for a generation and took advantage of an even bigger opportunity. He took his "Crossfire" appearance and made a grand assault on the media and their complicity in the degradation of American discourse.

It was the most refreshing moment of the entire election season.

For once, someone took on the very worst of the media and, to their face, told them exactly how bad they are.

They tried to fight back, but Jon bested them at every turn. While Begala stood by, speechless, Tucker at least tried to engage him. When Tucker said "You had John Kerry on your show and you sniffed his throne and you are accusing us of partisan hackery?" Stewart immediately said "You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls!"

I really believe that this will be one of those iconic moments in television. It will definatly begin to transform the Jon Stewart persona from merely a satirist to public crusader against the media. Time will tell if this is a role he wants (Please want it Jon!)... But it will be the moment that people look to where someone finally said "Enough!" and began to tear down the media structure. Maybe someone will take his advice and truly start "coming to work for us."

A link to the video

Here, Charles Taylor from Salon says it all better than I can.

Comments

[collin]

Oh, I don't know. You do a pretty good job here, Dylan. I didn't see it, but I found the transcript, and then later an audio file, which was important, bc I think Stewart's tone throughout was key.

I was struck by how he was willing to soften his critique early on, but as Carlson refused to even admit his show's complicity and theatrics, Stewart became more and more frank. And more and more refreshing to me. It was an amazing contrast between Stewart, someone who hasn't sought the power he's gotten yet feels a responsibility as a result of having gotten it, and, at least in Carlson's case, someone who has no sense of responsibility except to the game he's created, and no sense that there's more to our lives than his game.

Maybe this is just me being naive, but the first time I can remember this attitude was during the coverage of the OJ trial. There's this weird faith on the part of mainstream media that, even after they make all the choices about what to cover and how to cover it, they're simply responding to the demand of the public, when in fact they're not really in touch with that demand at all. They use all the tools of advertising without acknowledging that those tools *create* demand far more than they reflect it. The "me being naive" part is the assumption that at some point, journalism wasn't just another branch of advertising, I suppose. And the credibility of the Daily Show comes, for me, from the fact that they understand what they're doing and take this kind of "coverage" to its logical, satirical conclusion.

I'm sure there's more to say here, but I'm going on and on and on and on, so I'll stop.

cgb

[Dylan]

I think you are right on the money here, Collin. The same can be applied to the war in Iraq as well. It is a different discussion about the news media's complicity in the war. My dad says that it made him angry how willing the media was to beat the drum, and not ask enough questions. But the simple truth is, like in the OJ trial or the war or monicagate, a public whipped into a frenzy makes for much better ratings.

Though unintentional, this ties in to what I said in an earlier post today or, more specifically, what Bob Woodward said. The media sees their role now as punditry and not as reporting. Certainly editorializing is a real and needed part of the journalistic process, but surely it should be secondary to the job of telling the people the facts about what is happening. And I realize the duplicity of my argument here: I'm mad at the media for not asking enough questions while at the same time wishing they'd simply report. They aren't mutually exclusive, I don't think, but the line has been blurred over time.

Stewart was Carlin-esque on Crossfire, and it was an articulate and important moment.

Now I'm going on and on, but its my blog, so I guess I'm allowed.