The Daily Show has slowly morphed from a jokey show that ridiculed stories in the news and humiliated ordinary Americans with more loose screws than a used Pontiac into a satiric, sometimes deadly-serious soapbox that picks up where the mainstream media drops the ball. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, you must admit it has become a gathering place for serious and healthy debates about issues that aren't addressed in the mainstream news filter. You must also agree that it's also become a show that Craig Kilborn curses for leaving with every step he takes on his piece of Earth.
Stewart's debate/lecture on torture with Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, deserved far more press than the Jim Kramer showdown. It was an insightful, thought-provoking and frank discussion of an issue we should have had four years ago that bubbled over the top, but never boiled over the way Bill O'Reilly's "debates" do over meaningless issues like the War on Christmas, the Massacre on St. Valentine's Day or the Aggravated Assault on Lincoln's Birthday.
May popped up in the pundit-collective during President Obama's release of the torture memos on the supposed "pro-torture" side of the discussion. May prefaced his viewpoint with Stewart by saying he was not "pro-torture," as some in the blogosphere have characterized him to be, which in pundit speak means "I am for torture."
In all fairness, May's definition of torture may not be the same as everyone else's. May said the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" were set under very strict guidelines in terms of usage and implementation of such techniques. Most of his argument aimed to define what "torture" is and how its use could prevent the needless loss of life and that by definition, the techniques used to gather information were not "torture." It wasn't the main crux of his argument or his reason for defending these actions, but it launched Stewart into a steady tornado of anger spittle.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
|
||||
Stewart apologized on Thursday's show for saying that Truman's actions against Hiroshima qualified him for war criminal status. He basically characterized it as one of those things you catch yourself saying and wish you could take it back by the end of the last syllable. The crack itself didn't get much press, except for a few right-wing "Media Matters"-esque blogs, but Stewart still felt the need to address it and there should be a considerable amount of credit given to him for apologizing for something that didn't gain much traction in the global media.
The main issue of the argument seemed to touch on something that hasn't even been addressed elsewhere in the news media: the effect of fear. That scared feeling down in the pit of your gut can make anyone do irrational and uncalculated things. Everyone with a gut (myself included, I eat a lot of cheese) gets that feeling in times of danger, destruction and war.
All of the facts still aren't out yet on the torture memorandums and the reasons for increasing the use and approval of these techniques, no matter what side of the argument you're on. Stewart and May seemed to agree that the issue has become so clouded in rhetoric and haze that it's become a "crazed conversation" that makes it very hard to even see the cause anymore.
At least someone agreed on something on television for a change.
Gone Too Soon: Invasion
Scrubs season nine -- An early look
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-02-2009 @ 11:18AM
David said...
If Craig Kilborn had not left the TDS, it would never have become the incisive, hilarious, relevant show that Stewart has made it. Dunno how Kilborn feels (nor do I care), but I, for one, am damn glad he left.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 4:28PM
Wii60 said...
I agree, the Daily Show wouldn't exist in its current form without Jon Stewart.
Also, Kilborn made the right move at the time, he was in position to be Letterman's successor, and left when it became clear that would never happen. Ironically, Jon Stewart will almost surely replace Letterman when he retires.
5-02-2009 @ 11:19AM
chrissthomas said...
I would just like to say that The Daily Show has not changed that much in my opinion but rather the mainstream media has changed so much since the Daily Show started that you can take the Daily Show more seriously than other news programs. Stewart keeps his brilliant and sometimes stupid humor but the truth is at least you get a decent perspective out of him. In the mainstream media you get whatever they deem sells (usually fear and conflict). Most "real" news shows have become tabloids.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 1:37PM
Scott H said...
I love the first 2 segments of "The Daily Show". But the interviews have gotten far too serious. The guests have gotten more and more obscure (the French finance minister last week?) and it either feels like "Jon tries to be Ted Koppel" or "Jon tries to tell boobie jokes to some author who has never seen TV cameras before". There's got to be a happy medium between fluffy banter with Hollywood "stars" and grilling policy wonks.
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 3:53AM
CM said...
It's sad that in a country with freedom of the press, the best news source is on Comedy Central.
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 5:47PM
Chris said...
Um...last time I checked...there's a bit of a difference in calling someone on their political policies and accusing someone of committing war crimes. Just a bit though.
I must have missed the part too that by stating my opinion that it made me such a "conservative sheep." When you can't win in argument, you just attack the person themselves instead of the topic. Good job.
5-02-2009 @ 2:38PM
GL said...
How is the French Finance Minister obscure? She wouldn't be obscure even if she wasn't the first woman to take on that role for a G8 economy.
I like Stewart, but the show doesn't seem to know where it stands on the spectrum of seriousness.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 3:54PM
gabbyd said...
i'm glad he apologized. i wish he was more sincere (like his speech when they came back after 9/11) but guess he is...
wars are horrible things, and calling people war criminals this or that doesnt help, and even if he was joking, NOT funny.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 3:35PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
I miss the pieces where they talk to people. Yes skewering the idiots at cnn and fox is funny ... for one or two jokes. but i much prefer pieces that involve interviewing real people. Their bit a while back involving miltia men was golden.
The interview... worthless. Simply don't care.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 3:53PM
Moesart said...
The Kilborn version of the show was superior in every way. A fun, silly comedy show. Five questions, anyone?
Now, it's just a political pep rally for pompous people.
The fact that the host of the show now is seen as some kind of reference point, just shows how far off the deep end it has went.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 6:33PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Agree with moseart.
I like Jason Jones and Larry and Wyatt Cenac and Jon Oliver. I would prefer seeing them in more segments.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with calling any high level people involved in the Pacific Theater war criminals. Even Robert McNamara admits the fire bombings WERE criminal. We set out to kill civilians in Japan. i'm not talking about the nukes... look at the devastation caused by the firebombings.
5-02-2009 @ 4:10PM
No1Dad said...
"you must admit it has become a gathering place for serious and healthy debates about issues that aren't addressed in the mainstream news filter."
TDS is every bit a part of the mainstream news filter. Only willing to "debate" issues that aren't harmful to Obama and Democrats. Otherwise you have to go Fox News (boo! hiss!) or, better yet, the blogosphere.
But now that Jon has admitted a mistake in calling Truman a war criminal, does he think pouring water on KSM's face to stop another 9/11 is worse than nuking 2 cities to end a war? Or is Bush still a war criminal anyway? Gee, I wonder.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 11:38PM
Richie said...
Have you ever even watched TDS since Obama became president? He's often VERY critical of Obama and doesn't by any means go easy on him... but at any note, clearly you're so ignorant, so very ignorant and insolent and you sit on your little chair and you don't understand anything. "Pouring water" like it was something to be trifled with. How would you like it if I took you and convinced you, triggering natural instincts, that you were mere inches from death. And you say it's not torture, or that the ends justify the means. All it provides is a moral ground for people to attack us - because in doing things like this, we lower ourselves to their level. It doesn't matter what the ends are - it's about what we do. You're a small, small person and you don't understand anything you're saying.
5-03-2009 @ 8:07PM
No1Dad said...
Richie,
Yes, I DVR it everyday. I may not agree with Jon politically but I like to know what the other side is talking about. It's entertaining and Jon is funny. Biased as hell, but funny.
5-02-2009 @ 4:52PM
jennifer said...
The interviews are okay, but I mostly prefer the segments where Jon riffs on recent news events or other news figures. I can't stand the rest of the cast (except MAYBE Wyatt), so I fast forward when one of the field segments comes on. It's tolerable when they're spoofing people who take themselves too seriously (i.e. militiamen), but when they talk to legitimate figures (like Colbert's interview with the scientist from the LHC experiment) it just becomes ridiculous and cringeworthy...not in a good way.
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 9:02PM
Sean said...
Well, technically speaking, Harry Truman WAS a war criminal, wasn't he? I mean, the way I understand it, a military force deliberately targetting civilians is against international law. Now, maybe that was one of those laws that wasn't created until after WWII, but by modern standards Truman would be guilty of war crimes.
I'm not trying to get into whether the nuclear bombings were justified or not (that requires an understanding of military tactics I don't feel qualified to discuss), but that has nothing to do with whether or not they were legal.
On a sidenote, I've always felt Hiroshima and Nagasaki get a little too much attention. While they killed a lot of people very quickly, conventional bombs actually killed more Japanese civilians during WWII. In fact, Fat Man and Little Boy wouldn't have killed quite so many people if it weren't for the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had barely been touched by U.S. forces prior to that point (which was done specifically so that, when the nuclear bombs hit, they'd make more of an impact).
Reply
5-02-2009 @ 9:18PM
Chris said...
Funny how you defend liberal Stewart and promote him now but when he goes...well...for a lack of a better term..off the deep end when calling Truman a war criminal like he did and there's only silence especially in the major networks. If Bill O'reilly or Rush called someone as prominent with an opposing view point a war criminal like that the NBCs, CNNs, and other liberal network media would be all over it like white on rice crying for blood. I'm an independent but it kills me to see such bias displayed no matter the network when it should be just about the news.
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 3:56AM
CM said...
I bet you don't have a problem with Rush and O'Reilly calling President Obama a socialist, though, do you?
You're not an independent you're just another conservative sheep bleating out talking points that you don't understand.
5-03-2009 @ 8:34PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Truman approved of the fire bombings of Japan - bombings that targets civilians. Had we lost he would have - justly - been tried as a war criminal. Deal with it, people. We did evil things in WWII too. It wasn't the white hats v. the black hats.
Reply