I know this is, like, so last week, but Jon Stewart’s face off with “Mad Money”’s Jim Cramer was of particular interest to me. For days Stewart took Cramer and CNBC to task over what he perceived to be media malfeasance, pumping up a market that was build on little more than pixie dust and gypsy tears. I recently finished reading “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Neil Postman’s polemic on the death of typographic culture and the silliness of television culture, and one of his final points resonated with me.
On the question of creating media consciousness, Postman wrote, “The nonsensical answer is to create television programs whose intent would be, not to get people to stop watching television but to demonstrate how television ought to be viewed, to show how television recreates and degrades our conception of news, political debate, religious thought, etc.”
Twenty-five years ago Postman predicted “The Daily Show.” If only there were more people on television who were willing and able to speak clearly, rationally, respect the intelligence of the audience, and show us the sleight of hand behind the ‘magic,’ maybe America would have a more thoughtful, better informed populace.
What do you think?
March 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I was gratified to see Stewart’s interview with Jim Cramer. I’ve been decrying the lack of journalistic integrity on television news for years (primarily since the advent of 24 hour news channels and news as entertainment). The irony is that Stewart’s program is ostensibly an entertainment program posing as a news show, but somehow it manages to provide more truth about the inanity we call “politics” in this country than most of the cable and network news programs combined. If I were a journalist in the legitimate media, I would be a little chagrined to have my work being done by a stand-up comedian, but at least someone’s doing it. During the last eight years of the Bush administration, I would occasionally listen to my favorite comedian, Bill Hicks (he died in the mid-90’s of pancreatic cancer), rant angrily about the stupidity of politicians, pop culture, and U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, and I’d think about how prescient a perspective on the country this little known, caustic comedian from Texas had even then,(and how if he had lived to see Bush II in office for two terms his head would have probably exploded!). Hick’s anger made some of his pronouncements–true as they may have been–unpalatable to the general population. His rant back then about Rush Limbaugh is still some of the most vile, hilarious, and truthful language I’ve ever heard from a comedian’s mouth! Jon Stewart has sneaked in with his nice suit and tie, familiar talk-show host desk, and cable news format and made speaking truth to power seem almost effortless and always fun. The Cramer interview was not the usual Daily Show, though, and I appreciate that Stewart had the guts to go after Cramer (I also appreciate Cramer for going on the show!)face to face. I admire the way Stewart kept his composure, remained civil, courteous, and respectful, but NEVER let Cramer off the hook. I hope that legitimate journalists will see that program as a clarion call to do the work–the vital, necessary work–they’ve been called to do in these difficult times. Bill Hicks was unable to disguise his anger and disgust at the hypocrisy of politics and corporate America, and I think it certainly hindered his career as a comedian and probably killed him. Anger has its place, but–even when it’s justified–any strong emotion can cloud ones judgment and stymie important dialog. I felt an undercurrent of that Hicksian anger coming through in Stewart’s interview with Cramer, but to his credit Stewart did not succumb to the temptation of diatribe or brow-beating. Real journalism requires intelligence, an appreciation for complexity without the need to over simplify, directness, persistence, civility, and a real desire to get at the truth. All of these characteristics were most definitely embodied in Stewart’s performance. I hope that more journalists will follow his lead and do their job as well!
March 18th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
In Postman’s quote it seems to me that he’s suggesting an *unbiased* “demonstration.”
The Daily Show surely seeks to demonstrate how media “ought to be viewed.” But, according to whom? The Daily Show, of course. I don’t think they make any bones about this, but seemingly many are confused about this point.
It may seem to “speak clearly, rationally, respect the intelligence of the audience, and show us the sleight of hand behind the ‘magic,’” but that’s mostly if you’re already in the choir it’s preaching to. It has seemed, over the years since Jon Stewart began hosting, to become more and more of a cynical platform for ‘liberal’ condescension. (And that condescension is very dangerous for the long term health of our country. It’s even more dangerous for the shorter term success of ‘liberal’ ideals, which, I guess, equates to the Democratic party.)
Though, I tend to agree with many of the points the show tries to make via humor, it should be realized that this humor is *it’s* “sleight of hand.” And I think many people who watch don’t really realize it. People seem to be forgetting over time that this is NOT the news. It is a comedy show, first and foremost, that is based on current affairs. People seem to think it makes them more intelligent to be laughing at whomever Jon Stewart thinks they should be. They feel that he wouldn’t steer them wrong, because he “respect[s their] intelligence.” I mean, he doesn’t feel he’s steering them wrong. I don’t think he wouldn’t express his opinion in a forum like that if he didn’t believe it was right. But this is also an accurate description of people like Rush Limbaugh. I also feel that, similarly, he tends to selectively “respect” the intelligence of those who agree with him. If you don’t, how intelligent could you be?
I also really love Bill Maher. I agree with his sentiment most of the time, but he also oversimplifies matters and takes cheap shots and easy ways out when he gets backed into a corner. As long as he makes a buffoon of his opponent and gets the audience to laugh, he wins. I feel that he plays fair a lot of the time, but he always has his asshole comic side to fall back on when he needs to hit the ‘oh shit!’ button. And he frequently does. It’s not fair, but it’s funny. I laugh, but I think: that was really misleading and irrelevant. But that laugh resolves the issue and it’s on to the next topic. I’ve seen him use racist, sexist and even childish, playground-style insults when he’s losing ground and has no way to dig himself out. And that’s fine, because it’s entertainment. It also appeals to my particular sense of humor.
But that’s just it: these shows are entertainment. They can be enlightening and intelligent, but they’re comedy shows. Comedy shows that flirt dangerously with politics, but comedy shows, nonetheless. In some ways, moments like this Jim Cramer showdown serve to confuse these matters even more and perhaps irreparably for many viewers who fail to discern the difference in the big picture.
It scares the hell out of me to see so many people who think of themselves as progressive, free-thinkers, being spoon-fed their politics by comedians. I brought up Limbaugh earlier, because that’s the kind of robotic regurgitation I keep seeing/hearing all around me. It’s just dressed up for a different generation/demographic.
Postman’s idea isn’t as nonsensical as he suggests. However, I think it is nonsensical to think for a single moment, that any *commercial* television program could ever fulfill the role he proposes.
I think the real answer is to make Journalism a required course of study for all young Americans. I think people need to be educated on the basics of how the media manipulates them and how to identify it when it’s happening. I think this is a basic tool of understanding that every American truly needs in today’s non-stop, media onslaught.
It’s fine to mock and laugh at the world around us, as long you understand how to separate that from the facts and, dare I say, truth of the matters at hand.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Thanks for the replies. My point wasn’t so much that The Daily Show is THE answer but an answer, something I hope we’ll see more of, which is the deconstruction of television on television. TDS has struck a chord and I hope that means that its audience is tired of having media producers piss down their backs and tell them it’s raining. And re: comedy flirting dangerously with politics – that relationship dates at least to the medeival period when court jesters were the only people who could speak truth to the king without being executed. Most of America has already come to accept that everything – politics, economics, crime – is a form of entertainment, at least as soon as television gets involved.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:05 am
I do see what you’re saying. I really do. But The Daily Show is only sort-of pseudo-deconstructing anything. It deconstructs TV in a way that isn’t dangerous to it’s own existence or bottom-line. The finger is pointed outward. Let’s not forget that The Daily Show is, itself, a commercial television show, created* and sustained for profit by “media producers.” It’s not a beacon of hope. It’s a show that happens to enjoy a kind of success where *it’s* producers can piss in the mouths of it’s audience and tell them it’s lemonade on a hot day.
To clarify my point about comedy and politics: I was talking specifically about (and did say) these comedy shows, in the here and now, modern era. Comedy as an art form will always be tied to politics, as well as every other part of the human experience. That’s as it should be. And, yes, as I also mentioned, it can be quite enlightening at times, too. Comedy is a beautiful thing, especially in the face of overwhelming things like politics. But as sadly laughable as politics can be, let’s not get the two confused just yet.
In fact, I’m really glad you brought up the example of the court jester, because it think it helps illustrate my point. The reason the court jester could deliver messages of dissent without repercussion is because it was entirely clear to everyone what his role was. They didn’t wear those ridiculous outfits for no reason. No one ever mistook the court jester for the town crier.
Flash forward to today and I couldn’t say it much better than:
“Most of America has already come to accept that everything – politics, economics, crime – is a form of entertainment, at least as soon as television gets involved.”
I’m not so okay with that. Are you?
The Daily Show isn’t deconstructing that. It’s picking up the ball and running further with it. It’s blurring those lines even more. And that’s fine. It’s not ‘wrong’ or ‘evil.’ It’s just dangerous to an audience that seems to be, through no fault of it’s own, exactly, losing perspective more and more every day (if ever it had it to begin with). This is why the answer lies, in my opinion, in mandatory education on the mechanics of media. We don’t need to alter TV/media. We need to give people the ability to navigate this media saturated world with their wits about them. Once we do that TV/media will change on it’s own because it won’t be getting the free ride that we’re giving it now.
I’m not trying to demonize The Daily Show, Bill Maher, TV itself, etc. with any of this. As I said, I do enjoy them. But I enjoy them with my eyes open, which I feel is a luxury/curse that many people don’t have. I just think we should all be a little more cautious about celebrating one manipulation over another just because we like it’s message.
I feel like I just strangled a puppy. Is that normal?
*Keep in mind, however, that today’s Daily Show is a much different, insanely more politically charged, animal than the one Lizz Winstead originally created. I’m speaking of the spirit in which it’s created every day in it’s present form.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:11 am
It’s not so much that I am ok with it as much as I accept that that’s the way it is and TV is such a force in our culture that I don’t think we’ll be able to roll back the effect. At this point I’ll take pseudo-deconstruction over nothing at all.
I think with the jester we’re somehow sort of on the same page. Everyone knows what his role is, and because of that he is able to say things the crier cannot. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, it always has.
“This is why the answer lies, in my opinion, in mandatory education on the mechanics of media.” Agreed.
Feeling like you strangled a puppy is normal, Jon. Enjoying it is not.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:43 am
is it about teaching journalism or media studies (plenty of kids do the latter in the UK because it’s ‘easy’) or more about getting back to teaching critical thinking and analysis as a basic skill to navigate life in general? People can’t appropriately deal with the overwhelming amount of info available to them these days, there need to be trusted voices to do this for the masses who work long days, raise families and don’t get to read blogs all day.
read something recently about there being more info in a sunday NYT than our great-grandparents would have had access to in an entire year, I think. we are assaulted on all sides by new forms of media, we’re in a new world and still exploring and trying to understand.
sent from my iPoo, while bored waiting for film job to start…surfing web on phone halfway across the world..who’d'a thunk it 10 yrs ago?
June 15th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Hi. I like the way you write. Will you post some more articles?