Since Jon Stewart announced his departure from the legendary “The Daily Show,” media outlets around the world have showered him with praise. It’s true that Stewart has had a substantive impact on the face of media and politics. Americans trust “The Daily Show,” a satirical outlet, more than Al Jazeera America, Bloomberg and the Economist — all objective news organizations, according to the Pew Research Center.
The Atlantic ran a Feb. 14 feature on Stewart entitled “Waiting for the Conservative Jon Stewart.” In the feature, Oliver Morrison contends that Stewart embodies a brand of comedy that is about “skewering Republicans (and less frequently Democrats) for absurd statements or pompousness or flagrant hypocrisy.” While politicians of all stripes will be hypocrites — that is the nature of trying to govern while being forced to enter a system that requires asinine amounts of fundraising — it seems Stewart has figured out how to amass more power and respect than most politicians.
But this is his Achilles’ heel. Though Stewart has an entertaining voice, he has amassed too much power for a satirist and hides behind his comedic license when faced with the impact of his social power. And this is particularly dangerous when people begin to trust what he says without realizing that the facts and information presented have been manipulated for comedic effect.
He commands the respect of many in our generation. According to the Pew Research Center, which interestingly lumped Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s shows into the same group with news organizations, Stewart and Colbert’s audiences are by far the youngest.
Stewart is more trusted than venerable news organizations. He is viewed as an arbiter of what is reasonable. He pins himself as the most sane person in a world of political madmen, in which it his personal job to civilize others. This was seen, most evidently, in the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” — an October 2010 event held by Stewart and Colbert at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. that drew approximately 215,000 attendees.
Stewart and other comedians typify something deeply wrong with satire and discourses on politics that are increasingly viewed as legitimate sources of information. They project an image of nuance, understanding, sanity and morality but are in fact deeply flawed, biased and unfair. One could argue that the latter is not a problem since there is always a place for humorous commentary. But it is a problem because of the enhanced legitimacy of these actors — and they are actors.
Stewart’s legend began after his appearance on “Crossfire,” which was a long-running debate show on CNN in which politicians aired their opposing views on the issue of the day. When Stewart appeared, he consistently repeated the catchphrase “Stop hurting America” to the hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. In saying this, Stewart invoked morality. The show was eventually canceled, and many think Stewart contributed to the show’s demise.
On one episode of “Crossfire,” Carlson asked Stewart why he had inquired of John Kerry “How are you holding up?” in 2005, when Kerry was a presidential candidate. Stewart responded, “The show that leads into me is puppets who make crank phone calls.” This type of response reveals an interesting aspect of Stewart’s self-awareness. It conflates the two version of his persona: the most sane one and the one who follows puppets — the insane. These are just a few of examples of the dangerous cocktail of Stewart’s hubris and condescension mixed with his social status and trustworthiness.
By shrouding himself in the language of morality and the illegitimacy of the “Crossfire” endeavor, Stewart established himself as an arbiter of reason. Yet at the same time, he hides behind the role of a comedian.
Stewart is not unique in this endeavor. His protege John Oliver also employs similar tactics.
For example, Oliver, in one of his pieces, asks how Ayn Rand is “still a thing.” Oliver describes Objectivism in his piece as a “nice way of saying being a selfish asshole.” His piece is followed by a number of interviews with Rand and quotes that demonize and decontextualize her viewpoint. The quotes that Oliver references paint Rand as an intolerant ideologue who is fundamentally bigoted.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy is far from flawless — her fundamental thesis is that altruism is a mirage and that all actions are based off inherent self-interest. But even if one doesn’t subscribe to her theories, there’s a big difference between saying “I disagree” and refusing to acknowledge an entire discourse of thought by saying “It’s not a thing.” Ayn Rand is “a thing,” and so are her theories.
While Stewart and Oliver are entertaining, we should learn the difference between entertainment and knowledge. It’s alright to go to them just for laughs, but if we keep trusting their viewpoints and the information they present, their role in society will be more hurtful than helpful.
Graham Rotenberg ’17 can be reached at graham_rotenberg@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
