Oct 16, 2004
Must-See TV
Everyone needs to see this clip of Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. (Perhaps everyone already has.)
As many others have noted already, the interesting thing here is the obvious discomfort of Carlson and Begala, which I think goes beyond the normal social discomfort of having a popular, smart person tell you that something you're doing is stupid. What Stewart says is obvious--it's practically the marketing campaign that CNN uses for Crossfire. But somehow saying so in the way Stewart does--it's like a mobster breaking the code of omerta or something. Carlson comes off especially badly--Begala at least has the sense to just kind of shut up and let it all happen.
To be honest, some of what Stewart says is how I feel about blogging on my bad days, that here's this marvelous medium where everyone can publish interesting thoughts at no cost, and what do so many do instead? Serve as a partisan echo-chamber, parroting whatever the talking points of the day are from campaigns and political parties--which are talking points crafted to appeal to what each party thinks particular audiences want to hear. There's something painful in it all: audiences who already know what they think straining to hear their thoughts regurgitated back to them by spin masters so that the audience itself can then respew the spew right back out again.
I know, and I think Stewart does too, that there's some kind of middle ground between the hackery of Crossfire and some kind of turgid safe-for-PBS borefest with polite intellectuals modestly disagreeing. It would take finding the few honest political commentators out there, the people who might actually say something that contradicts the authorized party line or refuse to rise to the proferred bait.
On the other hand, the historian in me wonders,"When was it ever thus?" It's not like the circumstances that Stewart is complaining about are new. It's easy to rhapsodize about the Golden Age of public intellectuals, but only if you wear some rosy-colored glasses. Dirty tricks are not the invention of Karl Rove or the Nixon White House:"Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" comes from the 19th Century. The traditions that we criticize today are old, though sometimes in new forms. The stakes may be higher today than they ever were, the mass media more resplendent in its unused potential, but if we want substance, then we're really talking about creating a new dispensation than restoring one gone to seed.
As many others have noted already, the interesting thing here is the obvious discomfort of Carlson and Begala, which I think goes beyond the normal social discomfort of having a popular, smart person tell you that something you're doing is stupid. What Stewart says is obvious--it's practically the marketing campaign that CNN uses for Crossfire. But somehow saying so in the way Stewart does--it's like a mobster breaking the code of omerta or something. Carlson comes off especially badly--Begala at least has the sense to just kind of shut up and let it all happen.
To be honest, some of what Stewart says is how I feel about blogging on my bad days, that here's this marvelous medium where everyone can publish interesting thoughts at no cost, and what do so many do instead? Serve as a partisan echo-chamber, parroting whatever the talking points of the day are from campaigns and political parties--which are talking points crafted to appeal to what each party thinks particular audiences want to hear. There's something painful in it all: audiences who already know what they think straining to hear their thoughts regurgitated back to them by spin masters so that the audience itself can then respew the spew right back out again.
I know, and I think Stewart does too, that there's some kind of middle ground between the hackery of Crossfire and some kind of turgid safe-for-PBS borefest with polite intellectuals modestly disagreeing. It would take finding the few honest political commentators out there, the people who might actually say something that contradicts the authorized party line or refuse to rise to the proferred bait.
On the other hand, the historian in me wonders,"When was it ever thus?" It's not like the circumstances that Stewart is complaining about are new. It's easy to rhapsodize about the Golden Age of public intellectuals, but only if you wear some rosy-colored glasses. Dirty tricks are not the invention of Karl Rove or the Nixon White House:"Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" comes from the 19th Century. The traditions that we criticize today are old, though sometimes in new forms. The stakes may be higher today than they ever were, the mass media more resplendent in its unused potential, but if we want substance, then we're really talking about creating a new dispensation than restoring one gone to seed.