The Times' liberal book critic Michiko Kakutani profiled Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and managed not to notice he's a liberal (as are the vast majority of his fans).
A picture of Stewart on the set takes up the entire above-the-fold space of the Sunday Arts & Leisure section, under the headline, "Is This the Most Trusted Man in America?" The same liberal instincts that dominate Kakutani's book reviews are evident in her long, flattering profile of Stewart and the cast of the liberal "Daily Show," of which Kakutani is clearly a fan.
It’s been more than eight years since “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” made its first foray into presidential politics with the presciently named Indecision 2000, and the difference in the show’s approach to its coverage then and now provides a tongue-in-cheek measure of the show’s striking evolution….
Most important, at a time when Fox, MSNBC and CNN routinely mix news and entertainment, larding their 24-hour schedules with bloviation fests and marathon coverage of sexual predators and dead celebrities, it’s been “The Daily Show” that has tenaciously tracked big, “super depressing” issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power….
Following 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the show focused more closely not just on politics, but also on the machinery of policy making and the White House’s efforts to manage the news media. Mr. Stewart’s comedic gifts -- his high-frequency radar for hypocrisy, his talent for excavating ur-narratives from mountains of information, his ability, in Ms. Corn’s words, “to name things that don’t seem to have a name” -- proved to be perfect tools for explicating and parsing the foibles of an administration known for its secrecy, ideological certainty and impatience with dissenting viewpoints.
After chortling along with Stewart's "eviscerations of the administration," Kakutani implausibly turned around and claimed the show isn't partisan and takes equal aim at both right and left, a characterization not even ABC's Chris Cuomo, son of New York's Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo, buys. Cuomo said Stewart was "clearly a lefty." Kakutani's avowal would be unconvincing to even a casual viewer of the show:
For all its eviscerations of the administration, “The Daily Show” is animated not by partisanship but by a deep mistrust of all ideology. A sane voice in a noisy red-blue echo chamber, Mr. Stewart displays an impatience with the platitudes of both the right and the left and a disdain for commentators who, as he made clear in a famous 2004 appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire,” parrot party-line talking points and engage in knee-jerk shouting matches. He has characterized Democrats as “at best Ewoks,” mocked Mr. Obama for acting as though he were posing for “a coin” and hailed MoveOn.org sardonically for “10 years of making even people who agree with you cringe.”
Comparing Democrats to Ewoks is one way of saying they are wimps who lack the guts to go after Republicans like they deserve.
Here's a taste of Stewart's purported non-partisanship: Back in September 2006, Stewart called conservative journalist Robert Novak a "vampire demon" and an enemy of "American democracy."
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Has the NYT not noticed
August 19, 2008 - 05:37 ET by Pete WilsonHas the NYT not noticed that The Daily Show is a comedy show? Granted, I do not find most of what Jon Stewart does funny, but it is definitely not a standard "News" show.
Unfortunately, he does have an audience that thinks that his show is, in fact, a News program, which is frightening to me.
And Stewart uses that
August 19, 2008 - 05:59 ET by motherbeltAnd Stewart uses that blurring to his advantage, straddling the intersection of news, opinion and comedy.
He's the master of the liberal art of humor: saying awful things and then yelling "It's a joke!!" and when he gets called on things is likely to yell "It's a fake news show!" or something similar.
And too many of our Generation X, or Y, or Next )whatever it's called now) can't tell the difference between news and satire.
question
August 19, 2008 - 09:33 ET by johnGso you're saying that satire-radar(or perhaps "awareness") improves with age?
Of course the detection and
August 19, 2008 - 11:42 ET by celatorOf course the detection and appreciation of well-crafted satire improves with age and life experience.
The issue with Stewart is that he confuses satire with adolescent cynicism. He prefers the shallow cheap shot, rather than the satirical, insightful comment which exposes hypocricy. I doubt he's capable of satire, because he's never revealed he can use it. He's still a frat boy, and will probably never rise above that status.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
It is a Good News Show
August 19, 2008 - 06:02 ET by allanfJon Stewart does a credible a job with the news as CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN. Just think Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Diane Sawyer and Wolf Blitzer.
Unfortunately, he does have
August 19, 2008 - 06:26 ET by NewsbusterbrownUnfortunately, he does have an audience that thinks that his show is, in fact, a News program, which is frightening to me.
Not to mention the fact that Stewart tries to pretend in interviews that he beats up both sides equally, which is a crock. If he just admitted that "The Daily Show" was created for liberals, I wouldn't care what he would say on the program.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
news program?
August 19, 2008 - 09:29 ET by johnGSeriously, how can you claim that the audience thinks its news? do you think they're duped and now think comedy central is competing with fox news, cnn, etc?
I've been watching this show since high school, all through college and now, if i have time, after work and have always thought of it as satircal commentary on news, media, politics, etc. The jokes don't make sense unless you've previously read about or have a working knowledge of the topics.
I know quite a few people who watch the show and never have come across someone who watches the show for information purposes, only entertainment. Maybe that's an anomaly, but I doubt it.
So don't be frightened...
trust us dude, the
August 19, 2008 - 09:39 ET by TruthMongertrust us dude, the believers are out there
and most people who know who Jon Stewart is have no idea who their congress reps are
do you think maybe that's scary? or maybe not - wouldn't surprise me
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
im going to trust some
August 19, 2008 - 09:43 ET by johnGim going to trust some random member on NB? the only people who would do that probably think the daily show is real news.
We understand that the
August 19, 2008 - 11:49 ET by celatorWe understand that the Daily Show is not "real news". We really do. Honest.
Here's the issue: recent surveys of the show's audience reveal that in the 18-25 year old age cohort, about 80 percent cite the Daily Show as their ONLY source of "news". The extension of that result is that they believe if current news isn't "funny", then it's really not "news".
In addition, that same age cohort isn't reading newspapers regularly (HUGE drop in the last 20 years), is not watching television news and tune out when radio programs break for news.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
first, could you post where
August 19, 2008 - 13:39 ET by johnGfirst, could you post where to find these surveys?
second, are those the same surveys that list the daily show audience as more educated and knowledgeable than o'reilly's, lou dobbs' and msnbc's audiences? i think i've seen those before.
lastly, no one is reading print anymore, and being much more tech savvy(though light in satire awareness), don't you think they get a huge percentage of their information from the internet?
They're hardly nonpartisan
August 19, 2008 - 06:28 ET by sarcasmoBut I think the Daily Show & Colbert Report can be part of a good, balanced news diet; even though saying that around these parts isn't always too popular. And even though they're both mostly comedy, IMO occasionally they've hit a news story out of the park.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
But I think the Daily Show
August 19, 2008 - 07:55 ET by NewsbusterbrownBut I think the Daily Show & Colbert Report can be part of a good, balanced news diet; even though saying that around these parts isn't always too popular.
Probably because it's incorrect, Sarc. ;-)
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Guy in the cubicle next door.
August 19, 2008 - 08:34 ET by JWFThe guy in the cubicle tries to run this by me too.
This is form of appeal to complexity, a fallacious argument. "You can't possibly stay informed unless you watch every show out there ever ever ever"
It is also infuriating when I hear it. I watch BOR, H&C, Special Report w/ BH, Redeye, Beck, Cavuto, Bulls & Bears, & Happy Hour. That is 8 hours worth of shows a day.
I also read the WSJ and check on about 5 blog type websites a day.
No, that is not enough for the guy in the cubicle next door, I cannot possibly stay informed unless I also tune into your nutty lefty loonytune show to get balance.
Well, I skip O'Reilly (too much interrupting guests)
August 19, 2008 - 08:38 ET by sarcasmoAnd I watch those 2 instead. I like my info-diet, and conservatives do get their say, too. Do I *need* Colbert & Stewart? No, but they both add context, and as I said, they do occasionally hit one out of the park.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
The guy in the cubicle next door fails to get my point too.
August 19, 2008 - 08:49 ET by JWFThe point was not what I watched but how much demands on my time the guy in the cubicle next door wants to make just so I can have balance and context.
I do not need balance and context. I need the truth.
Hey, he may care
August 19, 2008 - 08:53 ET by sarcasmoBut I don't give a crap what you find useful to watch, I'm just talking about what I find useful for me, and Comedy Central provides my Fox News habit balance. I can't sit through various TV/radio shows other people somehow seem to like quite a bit.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
The guy in the cubicle next door gets frustrated too.
August 19, 2008 - 09:19 ET by JWFThe guy in the cubicle next door gets frustrated when he realizes I will not get the neccessary balance and context. He usually resorts to ad hominem attacks in the form of dismissals of my person.
Oh look, my download is done, hee hee hee, Mark just gave a liberal the 20 second clock.
Not giving a crap != "frustrated"
August 19, 2008 - 09:23 ET by sarcasmoIt's simply not giving a crap. Sorry to disappoint.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Argument Ad Nauseam
August 19, 2008 - 09:50 ET by JWFThe guy in the cubicle next door sometimes resorts to Argument Ad Nauseum fallacious arguments too.
Fred?
Sounds like a good idea for
August 19, 2008 - 11:51 ET by celatorSounds like a good idea for a Dilbert cartoon ;+}
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
I forgot.
August 19, 2008 - 08:42 ET by JWFI also listen to Mark Levin.
I have his shows stored up on the laptop. I usually put on the headphones & catch up on his shows when the guy in the cubicle next door starts talking.
He finds this rude. He truly does not understand my level of concern. Or at least I think he does not understand, as I cannot hear his whining.
Opinion as news? Or as a compliment to news?
August 19, 2008 - 09:27 ET by CobraMan"But I think the Daily Show & Colbert Report can be part of a good, balanced news diet; even though saying that around these parts isn't always too popular."
A good, balanced news diet? Only if you like news to be balanced with opinion, as a lot of people do. The Daily Show, by it's OWN admission, is not a news show, it is a comedic OPINION show. It's the Comedy Central version of an op/ed in the local newspaper. If you rely solely upon opinion as a news source, you’re going to be singularly uninformed.
A compliment to OPINION
August 19, 2008 - 09:40 ET by sarcasmoYou're acting as if Fox News consists of 0 opinions, which is beyond laughable. And an example of hitting one out of the park compared to ALL THE REST OF THE "REAL" NEWS MEDIA -- BAR NONE -- on one issue is the Daily Show's classic take on the ease of voting machine fraud.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
How are you acting?
August 19, 2008 - 10:21 ET by CobraManDoes Fox intersperse news with opinions and "analysis" of real world events? Yes, just as ALL news stations do. But to claim that the Daily show is comparable to Fox News is, as you put it, beyond foolish.
You're acting as if the Daily Show is an actual news program, which is beyond ignorant. What news story has the Daily Show actually reported as opposed to being interpreted from OTHER sources? What investigative journalism has Jon Stewart actually done? Absolutely none.
Jon doesn't REPORT the news, any more than Leno or Letterman does. He JOKES about it on prime time and offers his OPINION as to what is occurring in the world. I would hope that you‘d be able to understand the difference.
Huh?????
August 19, 2008 - 10:31 ET by sarcasmoI just provided you with a link to better investigative journalism than any other network in my experience has done on the Diebold issue, done by the Daily Show. You may not like it, but trying to ignore it doesn't make it disappear, it just makes you look silly. I've seen both reporting and opinion on Comedy Central, like it or not, they're just heavier on opinion/comedy than other networks.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Double Huh???
August 19, 2008 - 10:54 ET by CobraManYou really think that this "Diebold investigation” is a good example of serious journalism? If so, you need to get out more!
You need to realize that those "conclusions" are all OPINIONS as to what MAY happen! It doesn't show any REAL occurrences of voter fraud or manipulation. It‘s just THEORY and, because of this, it’s ripe with predetermined conclusions as to how that theory will test out! It's the same as the exploding gas tank "investigation" or the Rather Memos, and just as trustworthy! If this is your example of serious journalism, then I suggest start looking to other news venues.
You apparently didn't watch it
August 19, 2008 - 10:58 ET by sarcasmoIt DID show real Diebold "security" problems, in fact, that's integral to the joke! Find a news venue that covered the issue better if you think the Daily Show did such a bad job. I don't. They kicked ass, but you don't like it, and I do.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
The "issue" is a joke!
August 19, 2008 - 12:18 ET by CobraManThe "issue" is a joke! You said so yourself! How can any joke be considered journalism? It can't, you're just reaching for strawmen.
BTW Sarc, ALL voting methods have "security" problems, some more problematic than others. I'm sure that any "investigation" can "uncover" a possible security breach for ANY voting method.
But where's the "investigation' that actually DID uncover a REAL security breach and indicated that voting fraud occurred for Diebold voting machines? It isn't in any of the evidence of supposed "responsible' journalism that YOU provide.
Face it, Sarc. People cheat, and some cheat in elections. This has been known for centuries. It is NOT "news.” It doesn‘t even have the slightest resemblance to News. If you want to discuss security problems and the risk of voter fraud, let‘s discuss the people who collect the votes and count them for, as any responsible journalist could tell you, biggest problem is the people who count the votes and not the method of recording the vote itself. This has also been known for centuries, and it is also not News.
Diebold "security" is a joke, you mean
August 19, 2008 - 12:25 ET by sarcasmoAnd you know it, and you know the Daily Show, just as I said, hit a home run out of the park on that one, but you don't want to admit it. Tough. I'm admitting it for you.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Get real!
August 19, 2008 - 12:46 ET by CobraManSarc, you may not realize that as you seem to rely upon Jon Stewart as your primary source of news, but the Daily Show did NOT "break" this story. In other words, they weren't the people who discovered ineffective security controls in the software and reported it. They merely EXPANDED on someone else's work, and threw in a bunch of conspiracy theories to boot! That's hardly “responsible" journalism now, is it?
BTW, why don’t you ask Jon if he thinks he’s a journalist? That would answer that question once and for all, right?
Huh?? Get real, yourself.
August 19, 2008 - 12:52 ET by sarcasmoWhere, besides your fertile imagination, did I ever call the Daily Show anything like my primary source of news (for the record, I don't have one). If you want to try making things up, you've just amply proved my point. Others who were here far before you have found just how stupid they look by trying to put words in my mouth, and you're no different. Can you point out even one of the "bunch" of "conspiracy theories" you claim is in the story? I doubt it -- and no fertile imagination allowed, stick with facts, instead.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Admit for me?
August 19, 2008 - 12:50 ET by CobraManSince you don't have a problem with someone "admitting" something for someone else, I'm sure you won't be bothered in the least when I admit FOR YOU that you're an idiot! Tough, right?
Same to you.
August 19, 2008 - 12:54 ET by sarcasmoTough, too.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I knwo you are..
August 19, 2008 - 13:16 ET by CobraMan...But what am I?
Shall I throw in a couple of Nana Nana Boo Boo's too?
Here's your problem
August 19, 2008 - 12:37 ET by CobraManHere's you problem: You’re confusing journalists with theorists. A "responsible" journalist reports on what DID happen, not on what MIGHT happen. We have millions of theorists to tell us what MIGHT occur, we don’t need a journalist to do that for us. We DO, on the other hand, need the journalists to tell us what actually DID occure. After all, it's in their job description; it’s within their pay grade.
So, Sarc, you tell me, DID any "Diebold" voting fraud occur or is that all just speculation?
Look at the video
August 19, 2008 - 12:43 ET by sarcasmoIt's clearly possible, as Comedy Central's JOURNALISTS proved, whether you like it or not. This one went beyond commentary, as everyone who has viewed it saw, but the commentary was hilarious, too. And possibly, that's your problem. These guys are naturals at humor, and it shows in their paychecks. I detect some conservative jealousy when the Daily Show and Colbert are discussed around here. I could be wrong about it, but I don't think so.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Comedy Central's WHAT?
August 19, 2008 - 13:18 ET by CobraManGet this through that TV addicted minds of yours. Comedy Central HAS NO JOURNALISTS! They have COMEDY WRITERS AND PERFORMERS! Nothing they produce is even remotely considered journalism. Even Jon Stewart admits to this! Why is this so hard for you to accept?
Like it or not
August 19, 2008 - 13:26 ET by sarcasmoTheir JOURNALISTS hit that story out of the park. Get it through your own head, they out-did the networks on this one. You are not the arbiter of what is or isn't journalism, so claim "it's not" all day, and I'll still claim "it is."
JMR
PS There's even a bonus "I told you so WRT Diebold 'security'" factor on this one.
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Highly Over-rated
August 19, 2008 - 06:42 ET by TexndocI really don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding Mr. Stewart because I've never bothered to watch his show, and I would guess I am in the majority of Americans here. Sorry, I just can't believe there are 3 or 4 times the number of TV sets in homes with kids tuned into Cartoon Network than his network. There was a lot of hoopla about his being chosen as "Oscar" host and I note that was a one-time ratings BUST and they're currently shopping for a new MC, aren't they? OMG, he's just a whirlwind of talent and trust, so they say.
Ok, That's It
August 19, 2008 - 06:52 ET by cjbreischThe NYT has now officially fallen below the National Enquirer in terms of jounalistic integrity. The John Edwards story brought them up to a tie. They are now losing the battle.
That is a trend
August 19, 2008 - 06:54 ET by theduck6Like Bill (not funny either) Maher, Al (definitely not funny)Franken et al, they want to be taken seriously until they make the inevitable gaffe that let's even the most ardent liberal and sycophant realize they are blowing hot air, then it's "Hey it's comedy maaaan, lighten up!"
Google images for Frankenbunny. And he wants to be taken seriously?
ehh....it's the New York
August 19, 2008 - 07:00 ET by obxrayehh....it's the New York times.
Seriously, what is wrong with these people?
August 19, 2008 - 07:13 ET by JWFAre they missing key brain functions?
I am a right wing nutjob. I recognise it. I can see other right wing nutjobs. littlegreenfootballs, hotair, ace of spades, pat dollard, long time contributors and commenters at NB.
I can also clearly see a loony lefty and John Stewart is one. I quit watching him shortly after Persian Gulf War II. That was about the time the lefty loonasphere started falsely accusing the Bush administration of secrecy, ideological certainty and impatience with dissenting viewpoints.
Why is it I can see where people lie politically but lefty loons can not?
Left is the new moderate at the NYT
August 19, 2008 - 07:36 ET by Kirk TurnerTo the left, their views are moderate. That's why they tend to call traditional American views "ultra right wing." If the left is moderate, the right becomes "far right."
As always, the New York Times type lives in a bubble where everything is theoretical, and they fly high above the rabble in gentrified segregation. So to them, Jon Stewart is a reasoned, sane, centrist voice, as is the Daily Kos and Howard Dean.
So the NY Times (Liberal
August 19, 2008 - 07:37 ET by mrbucketSo the NY Times (Liberal newsrag) found John Stewart (Liberal comediamentator) to be non partisan - and we're surprised?
Out of all the so called "Comedy" news shows, Stewart is funnier than the rest combined - I'll grant him that. He's got some pretty good writers. The only time I've found Maher's show entertaining is when a guest manages to put both he and his audience in their place (happens on rare occasion and is a joy to watch).
Liberals delivering their propaganda disguised by humor is nothing new, which is why they generally identify commentators like Limbaugh as "entertainers" - their super intelligent minds simply cannot grasp the difference.
I'll still watch Stewart now and again for a laugh, and when he gets too far into the indoctrination - change the channel.... and the Ewoks kicked ass in Return of The Jedi - that description simply doesn't fit. :)
Interesting To See
August 19, 2008 - 08:58 ET by Remixer96I think it'll be interesting to see how Stewart would handle a Democratic presidency.
On the one hand, I think the office makes for most of his jokes, ergardless of who's in it. But on the other, I think there's a liberal slant there too.
In short, I'd be interested to see how the show changes with a different party in the White House.
The Daily what?
August 19, 2008 - 09:16 ET by CobraMan"it’s been “The Daily Show” that has tenaciously tracked big, “super depressing” issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power…."
Excuse me? What are you talking about? The Daily Show is comedy, not news. Stewart doesn't investigate the news and report it, he comments on it using his own brand of humor. In other words, it's opinion and nothing more. It's too bad that a News service is too stupid to figure this out. But this shouldn't surprise me as the NYT seems to have a big problem with being able to separate opinion from fact, fantasy from reality.
This is simply shocking.
August 19, 2008 - 09:25 ET by iconoclastThis is simply shocking. For the NYT to report that "The Daily Show" is a viable news organization that goes after the important stories, whereas the other cable news networks do not is unfathomable. For a major news paper to give Jon Stweart that kind of credibility is unbelievable...simply unbelievabl! And just laughable!
"we should immediately give every working family in America a
$1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record
profits that the oil companies are making" Barak Obama, Communist
I think Stewart would laugh
August 19, 2008 - 09:50 ET by balboaI think Stewart would laugh at the NYT's characterization of his show. That's certainly not what they're trying to do.
I'm betting he covers it
August 19, 2008 - 09:51 ET by sarcasmoThis week should be fun.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
He who laughs last...
August 19, 2008 - 09:54 ET by mom_roxI think Jon Stewart would find this absolutely hilarious. I bet he and his staff are reading the article and saying, "Can you believe this? We're a bunch of left-leaning comedy writers, and the New York Times is taking us seriously?"
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
The NY Times believed that Pravda
August 19, 2008 - 10:30 ET by jefflebowskiwas objective back in the 70's. A leftist newspaper will never call out any other leftist media. The Old Media cannot die fast enough!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Vast Majority?
August 19, 2008 - 13:12 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistWaters faults Kakutani for not noticing that Stewart is a liberal “as are the vast majority of his fans.”
Elsewhere at this site, Brent Baker has a post (“Media Credibility Plummets...”) that discusses recent polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Baker quotes Pew as saying that 45% of regular viewers of the Stewart’s Daily Show identify themselves as liberal.
Last time I checked, 45% did not constitute a “vast majority.”
"... 45% of regular viewers
August 19, 2008 - 13:18 ET by MassConserv"... 45% of regular viewers of the Stewart’s Daily Show identify themselves as liberal."
A-D, are you a liberal, or do you call yourself something else?
Red Eye
August 19, 2008 - 15:01 ET by RainsfordAm I the only one who finds Red Eye on Fox at 3am MUCH funnier then Comedy Centrals news hour? Most of the time, you can't tell what's news and what's not, so it's useless for basic information, and their interviews are so terribly biased and uninteresting that they remain unwatchable. They also are forced to depend on skits to make it through 24 minutes.
Red Eye, on the other hand, actually gives you the run down on the news story and, unlike the Daily Show, actually may have dissenting voices. It stays funny, but when you have someone who hates Obama and someone who loves him discussing election events, not only do you laugh, but you get a bit of both sides. Far more interesting then that Daily Show or Colbert garbage.