Dear Jon,
I apologize for the salutation. This is not one of those letters. Although I do feel that our relationship has taken a slight turn in the wrong direction, I’m not necessarily breaking up with you.
See, I considered you a very good friend for many years. The Daily Show is a funny, sarcastic, and often informative look at U.S. politics. You guys have put out some great material over the years. Some of your interviews are legendary. I’m talking about the time you roasted Jim Cramer from CNBC, or the time you undressed Jonah Goldberg (figuratively of course). And who can forget your annihilation of Tucker Carlson on Crossfire, which led to that show’s ultimate demise? Let’s not forget those correspondents of yours – Larry Wilmore, Aasif Mandvi, Wyatt Cenac, and of course, Stephen Colbert. You made me stay up late just to watch these guys and I’m forever appreciative.
But I feel like you’ve lost your way, my friend. This new Jon Stewart isn’t as bold or as provocative as the Stewart I knew and love.
Let’s face facts here: you’re a liberal. Don’t hide it. Don’t be ashamed of it. Just admit what you are. There’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, I think for a time you were ok with the progressive slant. I saw you defend your politics well up against Bill O’Reilly time and time again. You were almost unapologetically liberal, and I respected you for that.
But now, it seems like you’re veering into the centre, that mushy middle of the spectrum that likes to hold its head above the left and the right. This is a mistaken path to take, my friend.
The centre may seem like a safe space to occupy. You can claim to take a balanced approach to the world’s problems. You can accuse both sides of being too ideological or unbalanced. But the centre also ignores a fundamental reality of American politics – it is inherently conservative.
To claim that both left and right-wing media pundits are on the same level is patently false. As loud as Keith Olberman is sometimes, or as smug Rachel Maddow seems to be, they are no where near as vitriolic, hate-filled, and just factually wrong as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or Sean Hannity.
Olbermann had it right. Standing up for the powerless isn’t the same as standing up for the powerful. Reverse Racism isn’t the same as racism (the former is pretty much an oxymoron). The loony left-wing positions (i.e. 9/11 was a conspiracy) have no mainstream support from Democrats like the loony right-wing positions (Obama’s a socialist/Kenyan/Muslim, etc.) do with Republicans. To preach that these two sides are equitable is just false.
I urge you, sir, to reconsider this path you’ve taken. I do this only because of the obvious influence you have. Don’t pretend that you’re just a comedian hosting a “fake news program.” Anyone that can rally over 200,000 people to Washington for a so-called “Rally to Restore Sanity” clearly has some sway. You should use that influence to actually articulate a message. I mean, did you even tell these people to go vote at least?
Look, I want to love you again, but you gotta realize that there’s a difference between left and right, and that not all positions deserve or merit equal consideration.
Be a force for progressive change, Jon. It’s the only way this friendship will work.
Yours,
C.R.
Jon's lost his way, but I think this happens when an entertainer becomes the most prominent voice of the (watered-down) left.
Winston Churchill didn't actually say this, but it works, "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."
Becoming more conservative (read as learning to compromise) can be a symptom of getting old.
And if a person can't play the game anymore, or entertain the crowd the way people expect of him, then he should pass the torch to someone else and retire. no shame in that. Everyone gets old.
jon stewart isn't moving to the centre. the rally wasn't about changing personal political ideas, but about having a sane, media. that you can someday have fruitful debate without vilification.
i don't dislike foxnews because its conservative. the atlantic, chris hitchens, and david brooks all have erudite conservative positions that i not only respect, but often agree with.
i dislike foxnews because it's dumb.
I agree John Stewart isn't moving to the centre. He always was somewhat centrist. But his uncritical allegiance to maintaining a facade "balance" causes him to take positions that are intellectually indefensible. Maddow had him defending George Bush and saying that you shouldn't call Bush a war criminal, even though the technically IS a war criminal, because that would turn people off.
What an idiot.
so i agree that the false balance shit is annoying. conservative leaders calling for 2nd amendment solutions vs a few liberal crackpots on about 9/11 conspiracies are not equivalent.
but the function of his rally was to ratchet down the hyperbole and calling bush a war criminal, i.e equivalent to Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic, would not do that. and at least on the liberal side the message got thru a little - keith olbermann cancelled his 'worst person in the world' segment.
Going to war on false pretenses, Abu Ghraib, I'd say Bush is war criminal. However, getting back to the article, the march demonstrates a larger failure of progressive movements to mobilize and to say what they think. Right wing commentators don't tone down their message. Why should the left?
I'm with you Ryan. I don't think there's ever a good justification to appease a war criminal. Part of the reason Bush was so fearless in committing his war crimes and so brazen in bragging about it (he fully admitted to war crimes in his recently-released memoir) is that he knows the the right has his back and the left is too scared to call him on it.
Stewart is trying to fabricate balance where there isn't any. That's where Rachel Maddow nailed him. When Stewart was citing examples of extremism on both sides his example from the left was a small fringe group of activists, while his example from the right was basically every republican congressman. And yet, he wants the left to tone it down?!?!
the reason that the right is always better organized, united (and thus stronger) in their message is that there is uniformity in their masses: for the most part, white, male, and christian.
the left is big tent, and people under that tent will inevitably come into conflict. which is why progressive movements next to never have successful mobilization campaigns.
anthony that's what i'm saying. oddly enough i'm proud to be part of a "herding cats" organization. the right is very organized but it means dissent has to be squashed as quick as possible and that prevents independent thought. major negative at the end of the day.
alex you totally right man, but that's the cross the left has to bear
The right are better getting their message across because they have most of the mass media on their side.
nah man, that's conspiracy theory! they have all the mass media on their side and we have the "liberal media". both untrue i think
the biggest sign that the 'right' have one another's backs is how they always supported Bush, even when he contradicted conservative principles: big prescription drug plans, huge deficit spending, federal education standards, bank bailouts, nation building projects, immigration reform (!).
that stuff only became issues for the Tea Party when Obama took charge.
No, Aman, "9/11 is an insider job" is a conspiracy theory. Looking at the media, especially TV, shows a general right wing bias. If we think of left wing issues e.g, immigrant rights, labour rights, unions, sexuality rights, fertility rights, anti-militarism, how many of these get a fair airing in TV. Print (including Internet) might be a little better, but TV and radio are dominated by the right.
Left wing issues don't get aired because both political party ideologies are right of centre to begin with compared with most other "liberal" parties around the world. If the Democratic Party were in Canada, they'd be called Progressive Conservatives Party of Canada, with Republicans resembling the defunct Reform Party. Socialism is to the U.S. Political System as Kryptonite is to Superman.
Ryan, I see what you're saying but America has always been a centre-right country. They've always had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards equal rights for everyone, whether it's women, ethnic minorities or LGBT folks. I think living here for 8 years (wow...) has forced to me redefine the terms of debate so i'm not immediately dismissed as an extremist lefty. Canadian left and American left are very different - Steven Harper sucks but you'd have to go Reform Party to find someone even approaching a US Republican.
i would say the right are exceptionally good at debate-framing actually. they managed to turn the word 'liberal' into something so negative that now we call ourselves 'progressives' - so maybe in that respect they control the media. But, like Rui says, i think it's just the fact that the left-right interface occurs so much further right that makes it seem like conservatives are dominating the discussion
i think american politics are certainly centre-right, and you can make an argument that the news media is centre-right, but i don't think american television/movies are centre-right by any means.
american movies/tv may show a bias towards the protestant work ethic, and the nuclear family- but for the most part i think american entertainment is far more sympathetic to LGBT issues, reproductive rights and immigration rights than the average american.
Movies? Yes for sure, I definitely believe the right when they complain about "Hollywood values".... Artists have always been cooler and more progressive though
I don't know if I'd classify the media as having a right wing bias. Most American journalists (just like the majority of educated Americans) are liberal. The problem is, the right is extreme in its ideology, while the left is moderate/centrist in theirs. As a results, journalist, especially those at CNN, and now, unfortunately, John Stewart, tailor their reporting to converge to the gravitational centre of the discourse, which naturally ends up being right of centre. So, yes, I would say that the media is slightly right wing, but I wouldn't call it a bias, but rather a manifestation of their overall lack of critical thought.
John Stewart is a total fraud. I always questioned his intelligence, but after watching Rachel Maddow take him apart, I can't even stand to look at his face anymore.