WSJ: The Daily Dodge - Bowman's Bash of Jon Stewart Backfires

[Xipe Totec]

A pathetic attempt by James Bowman to rescue Tucker Carlson from an embarrassing performance on Crossfire:

Now (Jon Stewart) seems to be branching out into a sermonizing mode, if hypocritically. Last week he went on CNN's "Crossfire" to tell co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala that they were "partisan hacks" who were "hurting America."

(snip)

It's a convenient double game. Mr. Stewart owes his success in no small measure to his irreverence toward the sanctimony with which the regular or "real" TV news conducts its business, yet there he is attacking one of the few news shows on television that has no room for the network "anchor" and his po-faced self-importance. Certainly Mr. Stewart's criticism of "Crossfire" for its resemblance to pro-wrestling is odd coming from an avowed entertainer like himself. Could it be that he wants to corner the market in turning politics into entertainment?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005791

The only reason to read the editorial is to give necessary context to the replies submitted by readers. Some are absolutely brilliant. Here is one:

Not the Same Responsibility
Luke A. Tilley - Aldan, Pa.

I am glad that Jon Stewart has made enough of an impact this year that he gets print in the Journal. However, your piece misses two very important points.

You present the statistic that "21% of people aged 18-29 'regularly' got news about the election from 'The Daily Show' or . . . late-night comedians." As cited, the stat doesn't make clear whether it is those people's single or predominant news source. Certainly it is more telling that a recent Annenberg survey found that regular "Daily Show" viewers scored significantly higher on a test of campaign issues and the stances of each candidate than did the average population, or even viewers of some news networks. In short, "Daily Show" viewers are intelligent and informed, something you implicitly dismiss in your article.

Secondly, you accuse Mr. Stewart of playing a "convenient double game" by taking the position that his show should not be held to the same standards as Crossfire et al., while attacking the right-hand side of the political spectrum and endorsing John Kerry. What you conveniently leave out is 1) he also attacks Mr. Kerry and the left (albeit less frequently) and 2) his endorsement of John Kerry was made not on "The Daily Show" but in a separate interview.

Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" do not have the same responsibility to the public as does the news media. If CNN wants to bring him on their show, he is perfectly justified in presenting his views on their format.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/responses.html?article_id=110005791

[indigobusiness]

1. The lucidity of tha reader's commentary

blows the doors off anything Tucker, or GW, has ever said.

[myopic4141]

2. A blast from the past

Bowman's article about the Jon Stewart/Tucker Carlson argument on CNN's Crossfire reminded me of an incident many many years ago on the Tonight Show when it was hosted by Jack Paar. His guest was Sheri Lewis and her hand puppet Lambchop. There was another actress seated on the other side of Sheri and I cannot remember her name; but, I will never forget what happened. While Sheri was have the normal chit chat with Jack, the other guest began a conversation with Lambchop at the same time which shows how good Sheri was as a ventriloquist. In any case, the discussion with Lambchop became heated and both Sheri and Jack stopped their conversation to watch the actress and Lambchop go at each other. The cameras turned to the argument as well. Suddenly, the actress realized what had happen and said in a loud voice, "what am I doing, I am having an argument with a puppet". It was the funniest thing I ever saw. This is not to say that Jon Stewart is a puppet; but, Tucker Carlson arguing with a comedian over who is more entertaining? Get real.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Yes, Jon should know better than to argue with a puppet

:evilgrin:

But it must have been a validating experience for Carlson to be taken seriously by a comedian.