First question, "You have both done so much to protect democracy. In the upcoming presidential election, democracy is on the ballot. What can we do to help people vote for democracy so that democracy wins and we save our democracy?"
An internet friend of mine I've been trying to radicalize for years posted this on their fb as, "an interesting interview" it was liked by a former Bernie supporter i also knew that voted for Liz warren. :pika-cousin-suffering:
Putting "Jon Stewart body count (do NOT Google)" in the deepest recesses of my war criminal iceberg chart
I don't get why the MSM is so obsessed with Hillary. She's everywhere and resented by damn near everybody except a small percentage of diehard libs. She even appeared with Kamala to help Kathy Hochul beat Zeldin by a whopping five points.
Same reason they were obsessed with John McCain. She's literally a close personal friend with the media top brass. She gets them tickets to Little Saint James and knows where all the bodies are buried because she helped dig half of them.
She's literally in the literal club where powerful people literally hang out together.
The Joke’s On You , from 2012.
“ Stewart and Colbert, in particular, have assumed the role of secular saints whose nightly shtick restores sanity to a world gone mad.
But their sanctification is not evidence of a world gone mad so much as an audience gone to lard morally, ignorant of the comic impulse’s more radical virtues. Over the past decade, political humor has proliferated not as a daring form of social commentary, but a reliable profit source. Our high-tech jesters serve as smirking adjuncts to the dysfunctional institutions of modern media and politics, from which all their routines derive. Their net effect is almost entirely therapeutic: they congratulate viewers for their fine habits of thought and feeling while remaining careful never to question the corrupt precepts of the status quo too vigorously.
Our lazy embrace of Stewart and Colbert is a testament to our own impoverished comic standards. We have come to accept coy mockery as genuine subversion and snarky mimesis as originality. It would be more accurate to describe our golden age of political comedy as the peak output of a lucrative corporate plantation whose chief export is a cheap and powerful opiate for progressive angst and rage.”
Its always worth mentioning that Stewart was a C-List comedian operating on a D-Lister late night show when media companies were rigorously purging their line ups of anything remotely perceived of as Anti-American.
Stewart and his cast, along with a handful of others like Michael Moore, simply slipped through the cracks.
This was back when CNN was mainlining Glenn Beck to its audience while Donahue and the Dixie Chicks were being purged as radicals.
The Daily Show was practically the only place in media you could hear someone espouse a sincere anti-war viewpoint.
To write him off as some relief valve ignores how successful the Bush propaganda machine was in the early '00s. Far from relieving tension, Stewart was one of the few agitators with a national profile.
Suggest you read the whole brilliant critique:
“But who, exactly, did Stewart mean by “we”? He’s not just some poor schnook who works the assembly line at a factory then goes home to mow his lawn. He’s a media celebrity who works for Viacom, one of the largest entertainment corporations in the world. Stewart can score easy points by playing the humble populist. But he’s as comfortable on the corporate plantation as any of the buffoons he delights in humiliating.
The queasy irony here is that Stewart and Colbert are parasites of the dysfunction they mock. Without blowhards such as Carlson and shameless politicians, Stewart would be out of a job that pays him a reported $14 million per annum. Without the bigoted bluster of Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, The Colbert Report would not exist. They aren’t just invested in the status quo, but dependent on it.
Consider, in this context, Stewart’s coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. His initial segment highlighted the hypocrisy of those who portrayed the protestors in Zuccotti Park as lawless and menacing while praising Tea Party rallies as quintessentially patriotic. But Stewart was careful to include a caveat: “I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s gonna be down with that,” he said, alluding to vandalism by activists during a 1999 World Trade Organization summit. Stewart then leaned toward the camera and said, in his best guilty-liberal stage whisper, “We all love Starbucks.” The audience laughed approvingly. Protests for economic justice are worthy of our praise, just so long as they don’t take aim at our luxuries. The show later sent two correspondents down to Zuccotti Park. One highlighted the various “weirdos” on display. The other played up the alleged class divisions within those occupying the park. Both segments trivialized the movement by playing to right-wing stereotypes of protestors as self-indulgent neo-hippies.
Stewart sees himself as a common-sense critic, above the vulgar fray of partisan politics. But in unguarded moments—comparing Steve Jobs to Thomas Edison, say, or crowing over the assassination of Osama bin Laden—he betrays an allegiance to good old American militarism and the free market. In his first show after the attacks of September 11, he delivered a soliloquy that channeled the histrionic patriotism of the moment. “The view from my apartment was the World Trade Center,” he said shakily, “and now it’s gone, and they attacked it. This symbol of American ingenuity, and strength, and labor, and imagination, and commerce, and it is gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. The view from the South of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty. You can’t beat that.”
It does not take a particularly supple intellect to discern the subtext here. The twin towers may have symbolized “ingenuity” and “imagination” to Americans such as Stewart and his brother, Larry, the chief operating officer of the New York Stock Exchange’s parent company. But to most people in the world, the WTC embodied the global reach of U.S.-backed corporate cartels. It’s not the sort of monument that would showcase a pledge to shelter the world’s “huddled masses.” In fact, it’s pretty much the opposite of that. To imply a kinship between the towers and the Statue of Liberty—our nation’s most potent symbol of immigrant striving—is to promote a reality crafted by Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Stewart added this disclaimer: “Tonight’s show is not obviously a regular show. We looked through the vault and we found some clips that we thought might make you smile, which is really what’s necessary, I think, uh, right about now.”
You got that? In times of national crisis, the proper role of the comedian is not to challenge the prevailing jingoistic hysteria, but to induce smiles.“
There’s more…
as Stewart and his brother, Larry, the chief operating officer of the New York Stock Exchange’ 😳😳
The queasy irony here is that Stewart and Colbert are parasites of the dysfunction they mock. Without blowhards such as Carlson and shameless politicians, Stewart would be out of a job that pays him a reported $14 million per annum. Without the bigoted bluster of Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, The Colbert Report would not exist. They aren’t just invested in the status quo, but dependent on it.
That's a superficial analysis of their roles in national media. Quoting Stewart's salary is beside the point. His starting $1.5M salary as the host of a late night show paled beside Leno or Letterman. It simply scaled with the size of his audience and the subsequent spending by his sponsors. Which is true of virtually every entertainer in history.
Past that "you can only do comedy because people's behavior deserves mockery" is a :very-intelligent: tier critique. Agitation is agitation. You don't get bonus points for delivering your critiques dead-pan. Neither does a DailyKos blog post garner additional acclaim because the writer failed to get paid for it.
What's more, what Stewart and Colbert did that was so laudable wasn't simply making jokes. The back half of each show was dedicated to platforming a host of low-profile activists, investigative journalists, and alternative political voices. Colbert spent a sizable chunk of his show spotlighting the influence of SuperPACs on political decision making. Stewart hosted a litany of anti-war activists during the Iraq War. He hosted critics of the banking system in the run up and aftermath of the '08 financial crash. Both spent hours of deadpan serious conversation debunking the perceived threat of the national debt, highlighting the values of universal health care policies relative to the privatized insurance, delving into the history of forgotten or under-reported tragedies ranging from the Haditha massacre to Mỹ Lai.
They were excellent agitators. They went far beyond the cheap cynicism of Bill Maher or the angry rants of George Carlin. They platformed and advanced the cause of progressive activists for decades.
The biggest sins these two committed involved walking away from that shit. Stewart's retreat into animal rights, after having to practically drag Senators out of their offices to get a vote on funding medical treatments for 9/11 emergency service workers, was hugely disappointing. Colbert folding up shop so he could hobble himself to Letterman's old hicking post and abandon anything even remotely confrontational in his platform sucked.
But to say they failed to challenge jingoism and hysteria at the height of their careers is flatly false. They made their bones doing exactly that. And it was this iconoclasty that garnered them an audience bigger than most major news networks.
it would be so funny if someone photoshopped brandon wardell in this image
Condoleeza Rice (secretary of state under George W Bush) and Jon Stewart (former Daily Show host)
