O'Rlly?

[sabotabby]

Okay, so I liked seeing Jon Stewart take on Bill O'Reilly as much as the rest of you probably did (hit the link if you didn't catch it last night) but something kept bothering me about it.

Let's break for my basic assumptions. You can debate me on 'em if you want, but they're topics I've posted about before.

1) The American Left is losing to the American Right in large part because the Left aims for balance and compromise and tries to appeal to the other side, whereas the Right does not. Because it does not, it both appears and is stronger and more decisive.

2) The entire notion of having a balanced and objective media is impossible and undesirable. The ideal media ought to be biased but diverse in those biases.

Back to last night's show. I like Jon Stewart, but not as much as many of you do. (It doesn't escape me that the only mainstream left-centre voices in the American media mask their critique in comedy. It's a time-honoured tradition for political criticism. It just pisses me off that there aren't any mainstream left voices, satiric or otherwise.) He was incredibly soft on O'Reilly, though, given how utterly he could have humiliated the guy. What's Stewart's problem with O'Reilly? It's not that he's a racist and a warmonger who sits in his chair and urges working-class Americans to send their children to murder Iraqis. It's not even that he fails to do his job as a journalist, and when someone catches him failing, he yells really loudly. It's that he's "angry." It's that he hasn't identified the real enemy and wastes him time targetting irrelevant countries like France.

Okay, but huh? Can't you get a little sharper than that?

What struck me about the whole conversation -- and American political discourse in general -- was how meta it was. The "enemy" that gets talked about by the Right is not necessarily Iraq, or even Al-Qaeda. It's the Left. Specifically, it's the "liberal media."

The Left, meanwhile, doesn't know what it should go after. Should it be more hawkish on the War on Terrorism? Less? Should it try to criticize the government? Should it play the same game and attack the right-wing media?

The issues that these guys should be debating are quite straightforward. Does the US have a right to bomb and kill whoever it wants? Does the government have a right to chip away at civil liberties? Is America heading towards a fundamentalist dystopia? Instead, the entire thing becomes a war of talking heads who criticize each other's objectivity (which is entirely besides the point. See above.).

Of course, I watched this right after having seen Tell the Truth and Run (hat tip to rohmie), which made me pine for the days of responsible muckrakers and thoughtful media criticism. Imagine a conversation between George Seldes and Bill O'Reilly? I don't think Seldes would have just made a comment under his breath about WMD, and then when O'Reilly couldn't answer it, just let it drop. Yes, that's a pitfall of television as opposed to print media -- you really can't get across serious analysis in a half-hour show.

But hell. Stewart had an influential fascist hawk who uses his power to perpetuate war and death on his stage...and he let him get away almost unscathed.

Sigh.

Comments

[chailash.livejournal.com]

The sad thing is, having O'Reilly on was just a marketing ploy on the part of Comedy Central, to help plug Steven Colbert's new show. The Daily Show now is even a sellout.

It's depressing. Your take on it is spot-on, in my opinion.

[groovitude.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not an expert on history of mainstream or left wing satire, but I do know that late night talk show hosts don't have a wide lattitude in what they choose to talk about. Usually, the hosts fix on the most well known bit of information about their guests, something that everybody can laugh at with recognition, hopefully something that has become an automatic punchline, and with O'Reilly that is his anger. Not many people know about his falafel nor care about his self-contradictions, but chances are they all know that he is angry.

When David Letterman moved to CBS, he was known as a bully because he had a bitingly sarcastic style, not necessarily for anything he said--well, showing a naked picture of Madonna riding a bike during the interview could not have helped him. He got a bad reputation that haunted him for the rest of his career, even after he became cringingly sappy and reverential to his guests. So, my point is Jon Stewart is smart and leftwing but he is nto oblivious to the proper decorum of late night shows.

[jaymoh.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you're right, but O'reilly is the worst of the worst. Even if he's a buffoon and we all laugh at him on the left, he's effective to a large portion of the American population. My father-in-law who is, dare I say a fairly intelligent guy, watches O'Reilly religiously, has his books and quotes him often. That whole family actually, (imagine my fun at Thanksgiving).
Stewart actually does have some balls though- remember "Crossfire" with Tucker Carlson? But I suppose he was just following the format of that show.
You see Bill O'Reilly, playing nice and having a sense of humor or whatever, and some might start to think, "Hey, he isn't such a bad guy." But he is! But Stewart doesn't want to be accused of being soft on the left and then tough on O'Reilly. Too bad he couldn't just say what he thought, but really, he's swimmin' in the same pool, I don't know that he thinks that differently. There aren't really big differences though between most of the left here, and the right, at least in terms of neoliberal economics. (Sorry this is so badly written and disjointed, I'm trying to work at the same time.)

[teapolitik.livejournal.com]

1) The American Left is losing to the American Right in large part because the Left aims for balance and compromise and tries to appeal to the other side, whereas the Right does not. Because it does not, it both appears and is stronger and more decisive.

I'll pick nits here: the "American Left" is a hodgepodge of traditional conservatives, liberals of every flavor, radicals and a whole lot of in-between. The "American Right" is also a very broad coalition, but is more focused and centered, devoted to strength in numbers over all else. The "Left" is "losing" to the "Right" partly because it is in the nature, and in the interest, of some elements in the "Left" to compromise on behalf of the whole "Left"; partly because the lowest common denominator for the "Right" is somewhere left in their spectrum, while the powerful and leading elements of the "Left" force a rightward lowest common denominator; partly because the elements of the "Left" which have the most compelling politics are irrelevant and seem to have little intention of making themselves more relevant; partly because there are lasting scars from elements of the "Left" (like Bill "Bombed More Countries Than Any Other 'Peacetime' President" Clinton) that mischaracterize the "Left" as a whole; and partly because so much of the radical elements are so quick to concede to the efforts of the more mainstream elements to compromise on their terms. Oh, and in terms of media, there is one more reason: the more radical elements of the "Left" are rightly suspicious of the corporate structure of media and seek alternative ways to inform themselves and others, but do little to address the fact that where there is not money, some other form of empowerment must come into play to make it reach anyone other than the choir.

Okay, but huh? Can't you get a little sharper than that?

I watched it, and I must admit I have mixed feelings. I remember watching a clip of Stewart on CSPAN and getting into his head a little bit, and realized that he says a lot of things I agree with and that I'm surprised to hear on television, but he has many ideas that confuse me, and I wonder if they might be more about getting people thinking rather than telling them what to think. Sort of along the lines of a Zen riddle (don't worry, this isn't about proselytizing, I don't really care for Zen), which itself is beside the point except that it encourages others to think about things they wouldn't have otherwise considered. On the CSPAN thing, he said that he would vote for Bush if Bush could explain to Stewart why he (Stewart) shouldn't be afraid of him (Bush). That's just not what one normally hears, and I admit it got me thinking, even if it began with "what the hell is he talking about?"

There are plenty of people who criticize O'Reilly for this or that, but Stewart has an audience that's probably heard a lot of that.

you really can't get across serious analysis in a half-hour show.

Of course not. At least Stewart is wise enough to realize that and try to set people off in the right direction.

But hell. Stewart had an influential fascist hawk who uses his power to perpetuate war and death on his stage...and he let him get away almost unscathed.

I agree. This is why I have mixed feelings. I hate to see someone like Bill O'Reilly without at least rotten fruit being thrown at him--but I think the Daily Show would lose its appeal and thus its ability to reach anyone if it became that hostile. Its value is in making light of things that obviously shouldn't be made light of, to present contrast and hopefully induce thought rather than coma.

[fugitivesaint.livejournal.com]

I am adding you to my friends list. I visited your journal and your reply concerning the thread in anarchists was well put. Hope you do not object.

[sabotabby]

I'd categorize Clinton as a centrist. When I'm feeling generous. (Bombing aside, look at NAFTA.) But otherwise your analysis makes sense.

Someone (I'm not saying you -- necessarily) should do a post on the Zen influence on the Daily Show. No, really.

but I think the Daily Show would lose its appeal and thus its ability to reach anyone if it became that hostile.

See, and that's the thing that gets me. O'Reilly (and other right-wing pundits) never worry about losing their appeal. They can pretty much eat a live baby on stage, apologize about it, and expect everything to be business as usual. I mean, the man shouted down a kid who'd lost his father on Sept. 11 with nary a bump in his ratings.

[fugitivesaint.livejournal.com]

I, too, would love to see a strong "leftist" voice(s) in the mainstream. (Sure, Noam Chomsky might get voted as the 'world's top public intellectual' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html) but how many people actually know his work?) I think one of the biggest omissions in the American intellectual environment is the presence of visible, opinionated commentators speaking from a "leftwing" perspective. The successful conflation of "leftist" with "democrat" here, equating Ralph Nader with "extreme environmentalism" and the like makes almost all forms of self-representation by the actual left more difficult then it should be. (Of course, there's a rather long tradition of vilification of the "left" in the US so nothing has really changed..except for the actual strength of the "left" as a movement).

Granted, going to demonstrations does not help one acquire the idea that the "Left" has a sense of identity, that it knows where it stands and makes that stand together. Any demo i've gone to in the last five years seems to be a walking amalgamation of every grievance, fringe political tendency and "topic of the moment" out there. Anti-war demo's are rarely focused on being "anti-war." One of the "lefts" greatest weaknesses is it's inability to get it's shit together, give a voice to the masses of people being marginalized, ignored or rapidly becoming disenchanted with the existing socio-political climate, and actually present a challenge to the current "powers-that-be." (It is also one of the "Lefts" great strengths to be self-aware, critical and openly prone to resist becoming an army of "ditto-heads", but i digress.)

Jon Stewart is, for me, comedy. I do not watch (when i do watch) the Daily Show to find a public voice to my private criticisms. TDS makes me laugh and that is all i ask it to do.

I do know that the average viewer of the Daily Show is more informed on current events as opposed to viewers of television that do not watch TDS. (A poll taken during the presidential election seemed to suggest as such (http://www.business-journal.com/NoJokeDailyShowViewersKnowIssues.asp).) Perhaps this is due to the slow slide of so-called "real" news into a more "entertainment" focused format which gives the Daily Show's comedic satire a more blunt and hard edge to it (The Daily SHow wants to be fake news so that it can openly criticize the American political infrastructure, hiding behind comedy). I mean, anyone who takes the time to compare "legitimate" news sources in the US could see the diminishing gap between them and "fake" shows like the Daily Show.

Hell, humor IS a great weapon masquerading as simple levity. Somtimes humor is the best form we have for presenting some of the insane circumstances that take place in business and politics (especially with Bush administration). But, as much as i love a good laugh, i love just as equally a well-spoken, straight-forward assestment of current affairs. It's something we really do need and on a larger scale then "Demcracy Now!", NPR and other forms of "alternative" media.

I am long-winded.

[genesayssitdown.livejournal.com]

the secret to enjoying the daily show is to not think that it is in any way important

[fugitivesaint.livejournal.com]

but i disagree. for many people it is important. how many people, who do not follow actual news sources on their own, end up deriving their information from commentary found on this show? i personally know a dozen people, highly intelligent but very busy, who take the Daily Show as a jumping point for the news they investigate. Just because the format is limited in time and scope does not mean that it does not possess value where socio-political discourse is concerned.

sure, the Daily Show is not exactly detailed, deep or systemic in its criticisms but it helps expose some of the hypocricy, lies and abuses of power that exist. a large portion of people acquire the information they have concerning world events from television, think of the Daily Show as a very small correction/supplement to this information. better it's there, doing what it is doing, then not there. plus, it's funny. laughter is criminally underrated and humor is not given the credit it deserves for being a medium of critique. (Bill Hicks was the man.) um, yeah.

[sabotabby]

Oh, I do enjoy it. It's now surpassed Law and Order as my 11=pm-put-me-to-sleep show, believe it or not.

[(Anonymous)]

I watched it, although I could hardly stand to. It was a really short segment and I thought that O'Reilly looked like a complete ass and Stewart was trying to get stuff in... I don't know it was just...icky.
PS- My husband is now reading your LJ cuz he saw your "They Live" icon and therefor decided you were super-cool. He doesn't go in for all the LJ stuff- hell, he doesn't even read mine.

[jaymoh.livejournal.com]

Logging in would be good.

[apperception.livejournal.com]

I just followed the link and watched the clip, and it's about what I expect from Jon Stewart. He's had O'Reilly on his show before, and he's been a guest on "The Factor", and while he does throw in witty jabs here and there, he never engages in open confrontation.

What shocked me -- I think this was a year ago -- was when he went on that show Crossfire and made a big stink on there. Why do the bozos on Crossfire desire bile, but O'Reilly doesn't? O'Reilly has much better ratings than them, he's far more dangerous, and he's far more of a problem than whatever they do on Crossfire. I mean, I don't really care that much one way or the other. None of this made me stop watching Jon Stewart. I just didn't understand why he threw softballs to a fascist but crawled all over the backs of the idiots on Crossfire.

As for your general remarks about the left wing media, I'm basically in agreement and don't have a whole lot to add.

[sabotabby]

They could be friends. (I suspect a lot of these pundit types don't actually believe the stuff they say. Apparently Ann Coulter and Bill Maher used to date.)

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

Who really cares when Tucker Carlson gets his ass ripped? The guy's claim to fame is being a boring and neardy tool who knows a little about politics. I agree that O'Reilly is more danagerous to fuck with.

[mr-flabulous.livejournal.com]

you're right, but i'm incapable of hearing criticism of the love of my life. so i can't respond intelligently.

[sabotabby]

I do not argue about the hotness of Jon Stewart. There's no room for debate on the matter.

[99catsaway.livejournal.com]

The Left, meanwhile, doesn't know what it should go after. Should it be more hawkish on the War on Terrorism? Less? Should it try to criticize the government? Should it play the same game and attack the right-wing media?

But, see, I think all of these issues are important. Choosing not to harp on one and stress another is doing a disservice to other important points on American foreign policy. Plus, it's not what O'Reilly and company are doing. They found out how to take every issue, every question, and spin it with the same theme: freedom. Tax cuts are about freedom, wars are about freedom, terrorists hate freedom, we want pharmacists to be free not to distribute birth control pills . . . and on and on.

That's the problem-- the Left has complex ideas of what it means to be an American and World citizen, and we don't know how to express it concisely enough to spin the same theme every time. What should our theme be?

P.S. I love Jon Stewart, but I don't have cable. I'll have to watch him online when I'm home from work.

[sabotabby]

The clever thing is that freedom has traditionally been the mantra of the Left. The Right has been incredibly successful in using language (surprising, given Bush's inability to form a coherent sentence) in that regard.

I suspect our theme should be justice.

Check out One Good Move. It archives everything.

[jk-fabiani.livejournal.com]

Jon was soft on Kerry too, Tucker had a point.

"Humor is disarming, so maybe I am punking you all" - Jon Stewart

[jk-fabiani.livejournal.com]

Also Don't miss the colbert show's take on OReally.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

I think your mistaken in calling O'Reilly a journalist, actually it really bothers me to see the two words in the same context as a wannabe journalist myself.

T

[sabotabby]

Yeah, but then I couldn't call him a failure as a journalist.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

I think you error in calling O'Reilly a journalist, actually as a wannabe journalist myself I'm bothered in seeing "O'Reilly" and the word "journalist" in the same context.

True, before he started trying to be a low brow version of Geobbels, he was a unremarkable and unknow practicing journalist. But what he does now does not approach journalism even in the low standards that Americans define journalism.

I'm probley hiding the contempt for my fellow country men pretty thinly here, but the honest truth is that the American people do not want to here reason but yet passionate debate on ideas and issue that really manner.

They want to hear 60 yearold school yard bullies like O'Reilly screaming "shutup!" at guests on their show. They want some Senator from Buttfuck, Pennsylvania to endorse teaching evolution in school. They love it when televangalists in cheap suits and plastic smiles tell then that fags should be shot in the street. They get hard-ones when a motherfucker who can't even string together a coherent sentence gets elected president and appears like "strong Churchill-like leader" while the whole motherfucking country flies apart at the seems with out of control gasoline prices, a fucked-up racist war and cities being whiped out by natural disasters while he and his cronies loot the country for thier captialist friends.

Honestly, Americans love this shit, they lapp it up.

I know it's not really an answer that'll probley not fullfill any of the answers you're seeking, but that's how I see it from here from within the heart of darkness.

[sabotabby]

Did I mention that when I was in the States last, I drove rohmie and everyone else nuts with wanting to watch Fox News? Honestly, I lap it up too. It's like a trainwreck.

I suspect most Americans like it for other reasons, though. It's a comfort zone of sorts.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

Jon Stewart is very soft on most "big" people that come on his show. He's skewered a couple of conservative writers, but he's generally polite even when trying to insult people. O'Reilly's been on before and it wasn't very different from this. Someone mentioned John Kerry; that wasn't just soft, that was completely devoid of content as well. That was actually very boring and painful to watch, contrary to this O'Reilly thing.

There are a few things to remember. Jon Stewart refuses to consider what he does as journalism. In a way, his show is not too dissimilar to O'Reilly. There are lots of fake news on, and not all of them "obviously" fake. The only difference is that he's acting within the "reality-based" community. The only reason he seems like a lefty is because the U.S. is so right-wing and disinformation is so rampant. Just like a small-l liberal here is considered a centrist, but would be an extreme leftist in the U.S. I mean, the fact that the Daily Show received a Peabody award for its 2004 election coverage says a whole lot about the state of journalism in that country.

And that is the very problem. The problem is not that the Left doesn't know how to play dirty. There are lefties that play dirty, and they don't go beyond the pages of Znet. If Jon Stewart had any actual lefty bite, he would not be on the air. He is at the very center of the traditional political spectrum. I mean, in regular countries, even conservatives would distance themselves from Bush and the neo-cons. (Apparently, Cheney and Gonzalez want to distance themselves from the Miers nomination, so maybe something going right after all...) So the problem is not O'Reilly, it's the people that pay to put him on the air. I recognize that he gets large ratings and no one can force people to watch him; he is the culmination of a process of gutting the educational system and gutting the public discourse. Taking on him does nothing, especially on Stewart's own show who's been taking on O'Reilly quite often. The problems are systemic and they have to do with media ownership and bias.

Actually, I have to correct myself a bit on Jon Stewart. His segment on Crossfire did have bite. What he was doing there wasn't owning Tucker Carlson. What he was doing there was owning the American media, American journalism. He was very dead on. But that wasn't a leftist thing to do. That was just what people would do in most rational countries.

Back to this broadcast. Stewart, is VERY distractable. He takes any tangent and runs with it. He was on Letterman recently and that was so scattered, it was extremely boring. (You'd think getting two comedy guys together would be funny...) On the other side of the table, you have O'Reilly, very adept at deflecting questions and introducing distractions. So that leads to what we saw.

Jon Stewart is not a journalist, even if TDS won a peabody. It's just that what he does passes as journalism in the United States. And in Canada too, at that point.

[sabotabby]

Yes.