Red Mosquito

The Daily Show has three primary legacies, methinks

1. Giving liberal (not democrats, though there's a high correlation) a media platform and spokesperson who could steal oxygen from the ORileys and Limbaughs of the world.

2. First rate media criticism. It did generate cynicism, but it was a healthy cynicism because

3. It restored people's faith in the possibility of creating a larger community that serves interests other than those of the powerful. It was never nihilistic. It exposed the fact that the emperor had no clothes, but it never sanctioned nakedness as a worthwhile endpoint.

cutuphalfdead wrote:he's editing it

he shouldn't be editing stuff I wrote.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:Americans seem to have lost the ability to consume any piece of news that isn't in-line with their exact way of thinking. Bernie fans are as guilty of this now as any right-wing nut job. "Media bias" has become their go-to phrase, which is pretty ironic.

Right. Sensationalist pandering on both sides have contributed to our current situation. They have become forms of ideological isolationism.

This I agree with. Although, I guess I would have to ask, what is "current situation" that you're referring to? If it's about the breakdown of political dialog, compromise, and a fair but adversarial news media, then I agree.

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:he's editing it

he shouldn't be editing stuff I wrote.

I was really only proofreading. I meant to hit "preview" not "submit."

I think both spike and 4/5 are correct, and I think that by comparing Jon Stewart to John Oliver within this genre it just shows a generational evolution. Stewart's "demonstrate the absurdity of the world burning down" appeals well to Xers, and Oliver's "let's try to rebuild these things that have fallen apart" appeals well to Millennials. Neither approach is right or wrong, just different.

Romney is all but running now.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/662/2016013 ... 959662.pdf

cutuphalfdead wrote:Romney is all but running now.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/662/2016013 ... 959662.pdf

that is fake, right?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Romney is all but running now.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/662/2016013 ... 959662.pdf

that is fake, right?

It's real, but apparently meaningless:

But before anyone jumps the gun and assumes immediately that the former Massachusetts governor is stepping into the ring, consider that Romney for President, Inc. filed a virtually identical form in Feb. 2013 and another in May 2014, long after the prospects for a Romney presidency were dashed in Nov. 2012.

Forget I posted anything.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Romney is all but running now.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/662/2016013 ... 959662.pdf

that is fake, right?

It's real, but apparently meaningless:

But before anyone jumps the gun and assumes immediately that the former Massachusetts governor is stepping into the ring, consider that Romney for President, Inc. filed a virtually identical form in Feb. 2013 and another in May 2014, long after the prospects for a Romney presidency were dashed in Nov. 2012.

Forget I posted anything.

good talk

4/5 wrote:This post feels like a very scattershot criticism of The Daily Show. Yes, the show featured disillusionment with a broken political system and culpable media that failed spectacularly to do its job in the post 9/11 era, but what's wrong with that in and of itself? And yes, the show was written from a frustrated liberal perspective, but again, what's wrong with that? You're criticizing the show because it "did not unify or engender understanding, nor did it preserve or restore any dignity to the discourse." Is it really the responsibility of a social commentary show on Comedy Central to do these things when the news media, you know--actual journalists-- could hardly be said to doing these things themselves?

There is nothing inherently wrong with it. And, no, it was never the show's responsibility to do anything, as I would argue there is never any real "social responsibility" incumbent upon any artist or work of art.

That said, an artist or work of art can still be criticized for its social implications; this show still wrought a legacy. It affected the culture. I understand the impulses and why it took the approach it did. I can even see the appeal of it. But I question the positivity of its legacy. I think coupling political commentary with such an overwhelming dose of partisan snark and cynicism has been an ultimately destructive force. This is not just a phenomenon within political punditry; many forms of journalism, art criticism, and fundamental cultural attitudes have been infected by this mentality. Personally, I find this mentality shrill, insufferable, and corrosive, and I do think, over a long enough period, it normalizes things that should be outrageous, and paves the way for trouble. Is The Daily Show, and punditry like it, solely responsible what we're talking about? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it didn't play a role.

The part of your post that I disagree with the most is your assertion that it "reduced politicians and politics to an unserious joke." While it may have reduced politics to a joke it was always a very serious joke with grave repercussions. Stewart's genius was the way he could take on very serious topics, expose the absurdity of the situation or people involved, make you laugh a little bit, but bring you in on the joke where you're both watching the world burn together. I've read people, and I think you would agree, who argue that this essentially amounted to a detached nihilistic viewpoint that was ultimately harmful within the young liberal demographic who loved him so much. I disagree. I don't think it was about watching the world burn and then shrugging because there's nothing anyone can do, but rather the message was: We are in this together. The institutions, be they political, media, or otherwise corporate, are armed to the teeth and extremely powerful and their power is only growing. The stakes are very high but if we are aware of what they are doing and if we remember that ultimately we are all we have, maybe we can do something and move in a positive direction.

Apart from my personal objections to Stewart's style (which I've spoken about on RM before), I think his effect on young liberals has been ultimately negative not so much for creating a "nihilistic worldview" (which I don't really think is fair), but for what I mentioned above: coupling political awareness with snark. He catered to liberals predisposed to agree with him, extracted easy laughs borne out of perceived superiority, and further polarized relations between republicans and democrats, making understanding and empathy harder and harder to attain. He hardened both the liberals who followed him and the conservatives he attacked in their opposition to each other, which doesn't help anyone or anything.

As always it is important to be aware of false equivalences. Both sides have obviously contributed to this decline, but blame is hardly equal. This is pretty well documented by the people who study this kind of stuff.

It looks like Ohio is inching towards a toss-up between Trump and Kasich. That could be a bigger story than any of the votes tomorrow.

Simple Torture wrote:It looks like Ohio is inching towards a toss-up between Trump and Kasich. That could be a bigger story than any of the votes tomorrow.

Kasich got dat Arnie bump

I think this kind of polarization between the left and right, which isn't exclusive to the US, is the result of the political poles specifically defining themselves as the opposite of the other. It's evident even in parliamentary systems even if we have more than 2 parties.
I think it's unavoidable for someone who does political or social satire to be distinctively partisan. I think any attempt at a politically neutral approach would just end up feeling artificial or even insincere.
There is an us against them way of doing politics that wasn't created by the media. It's evident even in what the media is being accused of. It's usually not so much that a certain outlet isn't neutral as much that it isn't on one particular side.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

4/5 wrote:This post feels like a very scattershot criticism of The Daily Show. Yes, the show featured disillusionment with a broken political system and culpable media that failed spectacularly to do its job in the post 9/11 era, but what's wrong with that in and of itself? And yes, the show was written from a frustrated liberal perspective, but again, what's wrong with that? You're criticizing the show because it "did not unify or engender understanding, nor did it preserve or restore any dignity to the discourse." Is it really the responsibility of a social commentary show on Comedy Central to do these things when the news media, you know--actual journalists-- could hardly be said to doing these things themselves?

There is nothing inherently wrong with it. And, no, it was never the show's responsibility to do anything, as I would argue there is never any real "social responsibility" incumbent upon any artist or work of art.

That said, an artist or work of art can still be criticized for its social implications; this show still wrought a legacy. It affected the culture. I understand the impulses and why it took the approach it did. I can even see the appeal of it. But I question the positivity of its legacy. I think coupling political commentary with such an overwhelming dose of partisan snark and cynicism has been an ultimately destructive force. This is not just a phenomenon within political punditry; many forms of journalism, art criticism, and fundamental cultural attitudes have been infected by this mentality. Personally, I find this mentality shrill, insufferable, and corrosive, and I do think, over a long enough period, it normalizes things that should be outrageous, and paves the way for trouble. Is The Daily Show, and punditry like it, solely responsible what we're talking about? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it didn't play a role.

The part of your post that I disagree with the most is your assertion that it "reduced politicians and politics to an unserious joke." While it may have reduced politics to a joke it was always a very serious joke with grave repercussions. Stewart's genius was the way he could take on very serious topics, expose the absurdity of the situation or people involved, make you laugh a little bit, but bring you in on the joke where you're both watching the world burn together. I've read people, and I think you would agree, who argue that this essentially amounted to a detached nihilistic viewpoint that was ultimately harmful within the young liberal demographic who loved him so much. I disagree. I don't think it was about watching the world burn and then shrugging because there's nothing anyone can do, but rather the message was: We are in this together. The institutions, be they political, media, or otherwise corporate, are armed to the teeth and extremely powerful and their power is only growing. The stakes are very high but if we are aware of what they are doing and if we remember that ultimately we are all we have, maybe we can do something and move in a positive direction.

Apart from my personal objections to Stewart's style (which I've spoken about on RM before), I think his effect on young liberals has been ultimately negative not so much for creating a "nihilistic worldview" (which I don't really think is fair), but for what I mentioned above: coupling political awareness with snark. He catered to liberals predisposed to agree with him, extracted easy laughs borne out of perceived superiority, and further polarized relations between republicans and democrats, making understanding and empathy harder and harder to attain. He hardened both the liberals who followed him and the conservatives he attacked in their opposition to each other, which doesn't help anyone or anything.

Mine wrote:I think this kind of polarization between the left and right, which isn't exclusive to the US, is the result of the political poles specifically defining themselves as the opposite of the other. It's evident even in parliamentary systems even if we have more than 2 parties.
I think it's unavoidable for someone who does political or social satire to be distinctively partisan. I think any attempt at a politically neutral approach would just end up feeling artificial or even insincere.
There is an us against them way of doing politics that wasn't created by the media. It's evident even in what the media is being accused of. It's usually not so much that a certain outlet isn't neutral as much that it isn't on one particular side.

sure, but guys like stewart on the idiot box every night brought it to all the couch potatoes, and now everyone's "informed." trust me, some people shouldn't vote.

spike wrote:

Mine wrote:I think this kind of polarization between the left and right, which isn't exclusive to the US, is the result of the political poles specifically defining themselves as the opposite of the other. It's evident even in parliamentary systems even if we have more than 2 parties.
I think it's unavoidable for someone who does political or social satire to be distinctively partisan. I think any attempt at a politically neutral approach would just end up feeling artificial or even insincere.
There is an us against them way of doing politics that wasn't created by the media. It's evident even in what the media is being accused of. It's usually not so much that a certain outlet isn't neutral as much that it isn't on one particular side.

sure, but guys like stewart on the idiot box every night brought it to all the couch potatoes, and now everyone's "informed." trust me, some people shouldn't vote.

Stewart gave people a product they desired, a kinda of risk-free subversiveness in the midst of the 8-year W. Bush debacle. Sure it had been done before, but never with the powerful mix of media savviness and intelligent commentary. He did nothing wrong. The blowback is that the infantilized millennials have never known a world without that unending mix of sarcasm with their news. God knows Twitter isnt helping in that area.

spike wrote:

Mine wrote:I think this kind of polarization between the left and right, which isn't exclusive to the US, is the result of the political poles specifically defining themselves as the opposite of the other. It's evident even in parliamentary systems even if we have more than 2 parties.
I think it's unavoidable for someone who does political or social satire to be distinctively partisan. I think any attempt at a politically neutral approach would just end up feeling artificial or even insincere.
There is an us against them way of doing politics that wasn't created by the media. It's evident even in what the media is being accused of. It's usually not so much that a certain outlet isn't neutral as much that it isn't on one particular side.

sure, but guys like stewart on the idiot box every night brought it to all the couch potatoes, and now everyone's "informed." trust me, some people shouldn't vote.

Yeah. Like old people and the Midwest.

I have a real problem with this accusation that The Daily Show was funny, though.

I think shows like Daily Show were necessary and beneficial at the time and have maybe outlived their usefulness, which is probably why Stewart and Colbert have walked away. It was a necessary reaction to FOXnews (which itself was a necessary reaction to liberal dominated news.) Whatever comes next will probably be a necessary and useful reaction as well.