It is a dark day for journalism when one of the White House Press Core refers to an interview conducted by comedian Jon Stewart as "serious journalism". Not because it isn't true, but because it is.
Many of my friends actually don't like Jon Stewart anymore.
This illustrated by an interview he recently had where the interviewee made concessions to him after 3 minutes of wrangling, and once those concessions were made Stewart immediately shifted the subject from the interviewee to all his ilk as well.
Basically, sometimes as an interviewer he just wants to argue with people. Sometimes I feel he just brings them in because he wants to say that they're stupid.
Colbert is better because although the show's politics still exist and are communicated, he merely plays a character and does let the guest actually talk. Nothing deep, but then 30 minute entertainment doesn't have time for serious philosophy.
Interesting, I suspect that Stewart's increased focus on stupidity and hypocrisy rather than simple ridiculousness is the key turn off for your friends. These foci endear Stewart more to those of us in the world at large where we have direct experience with these forms of incompetence. Colbert's theatrical parody is less savage.
I do believe you're slightly too harsh on Jon Stewart's interviews. His argumentative interviews are extremely rare, and the Jim Cramer interview is an aberration within that subset. It is the only time I am aware of where the interviewee was completely unable to defend themselves.
Within this link is retained all that is important, unimportant, and in limbo. At least as each pertains to the passages contained herein.
Who is this strange person?
You don't want to know. Trust me, you really don't. You may think you do, you may feel you do, you might even actually want to know. But really, you don't. There are a lot of reasons why you don't want to know. The first is I'm really quite boring. Trust me on that one, B-O-R-I-N-G. The second is I'm quite insane. Straight jacket insane. Not an interesting insane mind you, just that kind that makes you wake up in the middle of the night screaming something about how the Teletubbies invaded Cuba and set up a regime of Pants, Elephants and Used Cars. The last reason is that you don't want to know. I've probably already let on to too much. I might have to kill you. Speaking of which, where do you live?
2 comments:
Many of my friends actually don't like Jon Stewart anymore.
This illustrated by an interview he recently had where the interviewee made concessions to him after 3 minutes of wrangling, and once those concessions were made Stewart immediately shifted the subject from the interviewee to all his ilk as well.
Basically, sometimes as an interviewer he just wants to argue with people. Sometimes I feel he just brings them in because he wants to say that they're stupid.
Colbert is better because although the show's politics still exist and are communicated, he merely plays a character and does let the guest actually talk. Nothing deep, but then 30 minute entertainment doesn't have time for serious philosophy.
Interesting, I suspect that Stewart's increased focus on stupidity and hypocrisy rather than simple ridiculousness is the key turn off for your friends. These foci endear Stewart more to those of us in the world at large where we have direct experience with these forms of incompetence. Colbert's theatrical parody is less savage.
I do believe you're slightly too harsh on Jon Stewart's interviews. His argumentative interviews are extremely rare, and the Jim Cramer interview is an aberration within that subset. It is the only time I am aware of where the interviewee was completely unable to defend themselves.
Post a Comment