Jon Stewart plans to vote for Kerry

[Midnight Son]

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BEBAD594E%2D9354%2D488A%2DA4E8%2D AB21CABB1F44%7D&siteid=mktw

NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- Saying "it looks like Kerry," Comedy Central host Jon Stewart said he expects to vote for Sen. John Kerry for president.

"I'd be stunned if something happened to change my mind," said the host of the popular Daily Show.

Stewart spoke with New Yorker media critic Ken Auletta at a breakfast sponsored by the magazine and by the Newhouse School at Syracuse University.

While saying that President Bush is a "decent" man, Stewart lampooned him for saying during a presidential debate that he couldn't name one of his mistakes.

"He can't think of one?" Stewart asked. "I got a list."

I knew it ahead of time!

[Jeremy Johnsen]

Oh no, does that mean stupid (http://www.dearjonstewart.com/) internet petition writers will think they actually work?

[Andrew Mayer]

Hey, if Bush wanted Stewart's vote, he should have gone on the show.

[quatoria]

Wait, this surely can't be a surprise to any human being who has ever seen the Daily Show for the past four years, can it?

[Kyle Wilson]

Hey, if Bush wanted Stewart's vote, he should have gone on the show.

I somehow doubt that Bush would have been treated as kindly as Kerry was.

[Anaxagoras]

Hey, if Bush wanted Stewart's vote, he should have gone on the show.

I somehow doubt that Bush would have been treated as kindly as Kerry was.

But he almost assuredly would have been treated fairly.

[Andrew Mayer]

Hey, if Bush wanted Stewart's vote, he should have gone on the show.

I somehow doubt that Bush would have been treated as kindly as Kerry was.

Well, the President certainly shouldn't have to face anything that might be slightly unpleasant, or cause him to have to think in any way.

[Bub, Andrew]

Hey, if Bush wanted Stewart's vote, he should have gone on the show.

I somehow doubt that Bush would have been treated as kindly as Kerry was.

Come on man, aside from Jennifer Love Hewitt and a few other minor celebs, Stewart has been nothing but kind to guests who come on his show. He's not a rabid partisan, he's not an attack dog, I bet he'd be awed to have the President of the US sitting next to him, even if it is GW Bush., so he'd be on his best behavior. Sure the jokes might fly AFTERward, but he'd be honored to have Bush on.

[Kyle Wilson]

Well, if Stewart was as nice to Kissinger as people say, I can believe he'd be polite to Bush. But at the same time, I do think that the bow-tied asshole on Crossfire had a point about Stewart softballing Kerry. Maybe he would have softballed Bush too, if Bush had been on the show.

But if Stewart wants American political journalism to move away from the partisan tit-for-tat spectacle it's degenerated into, then he has the opportunity to be an agent of the change he wants to see. And he could accomplish that better by being a little more serious and less funny on his own show than by trying to persuade professional partisan hacks to change their nature.

Of course, I'm also inclined to knock Stewart's kid-gloved treatment of guests because I've always thought the guest segments on The Daily Show were the weakest part of the show anyway. They're not as funny as the news, but at the same time they're too brief and shallow to be interesting, rather than amusing.

[Jason McCullough]

What the hell kind of a point is "why are you so nice to everyone on your parody media show?"

[Kyle Wilson]

What the hell kind of a point is "why are you so nice to everyone on your parody media show?"

The point is this: When you start having legitimate presidential contenders on your show as guests, you lose the right to claim, "Oh, we're just a parody show." Even if you are on after puppets making crank calls.

[Anaxagoras]

What the hell kind of a point is "why are you so nice to everyone on your parody media show?"

The point is this: When you start having legitimate presidential contenders on your show as guests, you lose the right to claim, "Oh, we're just a parody show." Even if you are on after puppets making crank calls.

According to your logic, anytime a show gets a presidential candidate, then they stop being whatever show they were before and suddenly become a news show. If the Morning Show has John Kerry, suddenly they're a news show? I don't think so.

Similarly, a "fake news show" is still a "fake news show" even if they have John Kerry on there. They don't have the budget or personnel to do the background research that a news show is supposed to do, nor do they have the reputation or advertising to attract a viewership that expects straight news.

This argument was poor when the bow-tied dweeb on Crossfire made it, and it's still poor now.

It's true that many people trust the Daily Show more than the network news. But Jon Stewart is right about this topic: this says more about the sad state of network news (and idiot shows like Crossfire) than it does about the Daily Show.

[Ben]

Should Stewart have asked Kerry the tough questions? Absolutely.


But come on. If everyone else was asking tough questions, fine, take a shot at his sucking up to Kerry. But when Kerry can go on CNN and get the same sort of bullshit softballs, The Daily Show has nothing to be ashamed of. Stewart said something like that in his response. CNN should not be expecting Comedy Central to lead the way in asking the tough questions.

I remember The Daily Show had a segment where Kerry was on some show and the interviwer was asking him about Iraq and Kerry was giving his usual "Erh, supported threat of force then, not worth it now, still maybe should've done it, but not at this cost" bullshit.

That was a tough question, but the interviewer blew it. Kerry's response was absolute nonsense, and reporters should call politicians on that. "Mr. Kerry, you didn't answer my question." Is that so hard? Politicians don't give straight answers because reporters pretend that the bullshit spin talking point they get back was an answer.

[Jason McCullough]

The point is this: When you start having legitimate presidential contenders on your show as guests, you lose the right to claim, "Oh, we're just a parody show." Even if you are on after puppets making crank calls.

Take it up with Oprah, then. Just because she's a lifestyle theraphy show doesn't excuse her from asking technical questions about the UN budget!

[Anaxagoras]

The point is this: When you start having legitimate presidential contenders on your show as guests, you lose the right to claim, "Oh, we're just a parody show." Even if you are on after puppets making crank calls.

Take it up with Oprah, then. Just because she's a lifestyle theraphy show doesn't excuse her from asking technical questions about the UN budget!

Hey! Make your own points! That one is mine!

[Kyle Wilson]

Okay, I retract the statement that Stewart can't claim to be "just a parody show," because I want to make a practical, not a moral, argument here.

I think Stewart wants to make a great television program. But the appearance of Kerry on The Daily Show was neither especially funny nor particularly informative. It was as vapid as an appearance on Oprah. Asking serious questions would have made it better, if rather little off-message for what's ostensibly a comedy program.

I think that Stewart wants to see the nature of political discourse in the media change from its current state of adversarial theater. I don't think he's going to accomplish this by going on TV shows dedicated to political combat and telling the hosts that they're bad for America. (Though I agree with him!) If this is a subject Stewart really cares about, he's going to be best able to accomplish his goal himself, either on The Daily Show or by getting another program.

[Jason McCullough]

He probably doesn't turn his show into a serious discussion of the issues because it'd be toxic to the funny.

[XtienMurawski]

First of all, The Daily Show is on Comedy Central. Comedy Central. Come on, people.

It's not Crossfire. Or Meet The Press. Or Hardball or The Factor. It's a show on Comedy Central. It has a certain directive: GET LAFFS. This does create tension with Jon Stewart at times, a tension you can see. Sometimes he'll be in the middle of a great segment with a guest, something verging on deep, and he'll say, "Well, I have to end the segment with a joke now," and you can tell he hates himself just a little bit for having to do that. But he does it anyway because that's his job.

In the end he's doing a show on Comedy Central and still providing us with the best damn news out there, so stop bitching about softballs. Jesus.

Second, I'm growing increasingly tired of the "fake news" label. I've disliked it since Stewart first used it. By and large The Daily Show reports real news and makes fun of it. They also do sketches where they let people look like idiots while pretending to be deadly serious about it. This is not fake news. Nor is it a fake show.

If The Daily Show only reported stories like...I dunno..."Clinton Feels Nations Pain, Breasts"...then it could call itself a fake news show.

The Onion is fake news. There is a huge difference.

"Jon."

-Amanpour

[Brian Rucker]

It's not so much fake news as it is a fake news show. They present themselves, aside from guests and monologues, as a mock cable news show complete with reporters (not so much) on location, senior expert (not so much) analysts. I have heard Stewart refer to the fake news on his show as well, at times, but I get the sense it's the easiest and most memorable way to make his point. They aren't a real news organization and, perhaps, neither are the real news organizations these days. If broadcast cable and network news wasn't so absolutely crappy and self-important at the same time the Daily Show wouldn't be as hugely successful as it is.

[Jazar]

I agree with Kyle 100%. John Stewart has had some really interesting, intellectual and yet funny guest segments on his show with guests like Richard Clarke, McCain even Bill Clinton. I was personally let down that the Kerry piece was so fluff.

[steve]

It's interesting that people hold Stewart to some higher standard, just because he's a smart guy.

It's a comedy show. Any time it does something that isn't funny and is serious, it's the exception, not the rule.

[Jazar]

I don't see what's wrong with holding people and shows to their highest standard especially since they've done it many of times.

For the record: I don't like the crank call puppet show; I do like the funny and also at times insightful Daily Show.

[steve]

I don't see what's wrong with holding people and shows to their highest standard especially since they've done it many of times.
Okay, ignoring Stweart, we're supposed to hold a comedy show to the standard of, say, Meet the Press? That just doesn't make sense to me.

[awdougherty]

I think we need to hold the real shows to the higher standards before we hold The Daily Show to a higher standard (which I feel should be held to a somewhat higher standard... it isn't just a comedy show, it's a left-leaning op-ed piece).

But the real news shows should wonder why real candidates won't come on their show.

[steve]

I think we need to hold the real shows to the higher standards before we hold The Daily Show to a higher standard (which I feel should be held to a somewhat higher standard... it isn't just a comedy show, it's a left-leaning op-ed piece).
Exactly. And I think the Daily Show is shaming them into questioning more of the spin.

[Prodigy]

Stewart was pretty fair to McCain (and Bill O'Reilly) why wouldn't he be fair to Bush ?

[Brian Rucker]

I think we need to hold the real shows to the higher standards before we hold The Daily Show to a higher standard (which I feel should be held to a somewhat higher standard... it isn't just a comedy show, it's a left-leaning op-ed piece).

But the real news shows should wonder why real candidates won't come on their show.
If there's going to be a joke there's going to be a butt of that joke. Odds are, if we're talking about a political show, that's going to be whichever politicians are in power. It's less funny trashing people who can't influence policy decisions on a daily basis. Still, one thing that does bother me is that just because 'left-leaning' positions mesh better with reality, hence being less amusing on the face of it, doesn't mean some kind of artificial equal time needs to be created if right-leaning material is naturally much more hilarious and easy to parody as nonsensical or hypocritical. As it is Steward mocks both candidates and anyone who deserves the ridicule. One side just happens to be a much better target.

[GregB]

Or, as Stewart pointed out on Crossfire, The Daily Show gets their material from the absurdity in the system and that stems from whatever party is in power. You get the Democrats into the White House and there's still going to be plenty of material for the show.

[forgeforsaken]

Here's something I've noticed in reading a few forums about this (the crossfire thing, not the kerry vote thing). It seems that pretty much only right wingers are affronted by Stewarts comments on crossfire and are attacking him, calling him a leftist,hypocrite, etc.

I find this interesting as, to me, it was an indictment on the process and both left and right. Also, it seems that most of these people have never seen the Daily Show as they only cite the softball questioning of Kerry, but never the softballing of the Republican senators/govenors/etc he's had on the show.