Last night as we were driving home, there was an interview of Lee Siegel on NPR because he wrote a book titled “Not Remotely Controlled”. Mr. Siegel is the television critic for the New Republic, and there was part of the interview that I immediately disagreed enough with to write about it here.
At some point of the piece, he is asked about his opinion about John Stewart and his current success. That’s when I was surprised to hear him make a rather sharp criticism of Stewart.
Siegel specifically states that the manner in which Stewart examines the news is such that people feel that all effort in the political landscape is a sham. In his specific words, it’s having a “paralyzing cynical effect.”
I’m going to have to remember the old days of the Daily Show. When Stewart started (taking over from Craig Kilborn), he used the same comedic formula in terms of what kind of content and guests. Then everything changed thanks to 9/11.
For days there was nothing but news and the repeated footage of the planes going into the buildings. Then after awhile I specifically remember two television personalities coming back on the air that made a huge difference in the national landscape. One was David Letterman, and the other was John Stewart. Both shows are based in NYC, and both had very well crafted and socially poignant things to say. Both shows from that point on immediately took a more political stance, but Stewart did so to a greater extent. Enough so that I became disenchanted with the obvious political focus of the show when I liked it for the pure comedy.
But my point is that I feel Stewart, and now Colbert, isn’t having the cynical effect Siegel claims. First is that of all the people I know that watch the show, all of them are news junkies that only look to the Daily Show for the comedic aspect of the news. They are more than well aware that any information they are getting from that source is being presented in a way meant for entertainment.
But the biggest thing is that if there is a cynical flood because of people like John Stewart, it’s because the populace is disenfranchised with the political environment. You know things like a candidate winning a popular election and not the presidency… Unpopular wars… Increasingly sinking economy… Those kind of things will make a society cynical independent of a cable-based comedy show.
Therefore it’s my contention that while Stewart has an air of cynicism, it’s product of the previous disenchantment with how the political system has deteriorated away from “by the people, for the people.”
2 Comments
1 Hungry Hank wrote:
Word
2 Rikki wrote:
Interesting … I’ll have to check out the article.
I was flipping through the NPR archive one day, looking for something to listen to while painting, and I came upon this Terry Gross interview with Stephen Colbert.
Like most of her interviews with celebrities who assume a pose, she was somehow able to get the performer to step out of the role and talk about its themes and bases and impacts. The interview with Sasha Baron Cohen was the same way … probably better … with respect to Ali G and Borat.
Anyway, check it out if you have time. It touches on many of the same themes you describe.
I agree with you whole heartedly – the thing causing the cynicism is the real news. The fact that a comedian becomes a reliable news source, despite all apparent efforts not to, is a sad commentary on the state of the news – not on the comedian.