The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Jon Stewart drops the funny

Comments

  3. It reminds me of the time Dave Lee Travis had an on-air rant about poorly paid nurses — except this is worse because at at least you couldn’t see Dave Lee Travis ‘visibly struggling with his emotions’.

  4. Terrific heartfelt speech; I’m sure Stewart articulates a lot of people’s frustration. The “I believe…” gag is harsh but bang on the money. For all the reaction to what happened in the short-term, absolutely nothing will change.

    • Totally misreading what he said.

      He suggests that in a state that has Confederate Flag flying over it’s public buildings, and confederate generals as heroes is it surprising that the black population are fearful and are threatened with violence like this regularly. And is it surprising that this sort of tragedy happens when idiotic terrorists are taught no better

      • Listened to him again. You’re correct that he talks about the black people driving down the roads, the flag etc, but he then states ‘this can’t be allowed to happen’. C;early, he’s not meaning black people should be stopped from driving on these roads. The only alternative meaning is that the names of these roads should be changed.

        • Yeahbut, despite the off-the-cuff phrase “this cannot be allowed to happen” I get the impression that he’s not suggesting a solution, he’s merely exploring the background to the violence in an attempt to comprehend it.

  8. 1. Nine people get shot all over the world, all the time, for just-as-stupid reasons as the colour of their skin, not just in America, be sad about that.
    2. He’s leaving the show soon.
    3. He’s not that good an actor at ‘being sad’.

  9. Gary – I agree that it seems merely a rather throwaway comment, but it probably just betrays sloppy thinking. Unfortunately, this type of incident has been occurring so regularly in the US that I’ve became very jaded. As they’re unwilling as a nation, on both sides of the political divide, to take any action, they must expect certain consequences.

  12. This is all about John Stewart. Nothing else. Except that it’s by extension an opportunity for some Americans to whoop and clap in a TV studio and feel righteous about themselves. And John Stewart. Wotta guy. Should be POTUS. Etc.

    This is all so wrong. From the murders right on through the media treatment which he berates but is part of. Nothing here makes America look particularly great.

    • In my non-edit capability:

      John Stewart is first and foremost a performer. He gets paid for his act. He’s good at it, so he gets paid a lot. This clip is just him doing his act. It’s a John Stewart performance that directs our attention to John Stewart, as it is intended to do. He doesn’t talk about the murderer or the victims, doesn’t mention their names, because this would divert our attention away from John Stewart. Everything here is scripted and rehearsed – the scribbling-out of his notes (“hey! flying by the seat of my pants here!”) is a brilliant device, as are the pauses while he “thinks” about what to say next. Which is what, exactly? What is his point? Beats me. Bad things happen and we can do nothing to stop them?

      This isn’t cynicism on my part. I admire Stewart – nobody does this schtick better. But this is schtick. Timed down to the beat where he introduces his guest. He knew exactly how long those struggling-to-come-to-grips-with-this pauses lasted, to the second. Kudos.

  14. Seems to me the cynicism of a number of the posts here far outweighs any cyncism the professional performer may be displaying as he runs through his TV schtick.
    You get from a direct address piece like Stewart’s what you bring to it.

    • Except that Stewart’s piece isn’t a “direct address piece”. It’s schtick about him. That’s what he brings to it. Nothing about the victims or the murderer. No names or faces other than his own. To recognise this isn’t necessarily to be cynical, just realistic. Nor does it mean he doesn’t hold sincere and worthy views on the subject. Whatever they may be … street names …

      • Talking straight to camera seems pretty direct address to me.
        Stewart is talking to his ( predominantly US) audience.
        It would seem the case that large swathes of that audience virtually ‘demand’ that Stewart provides a balm to make them feel better about their country & their liberal ( in the US sense) take on things.

        This strikes me as an occasion where he feels – understandably – there are no gags to be had here & if the audience is looking for him to lighten their mood, he can’t oblige.
        He’s just a funny man not feeling very funny today. I can’t really see that as indictable.
        As a TV performer, he’s always going to be performing whenhe’s at work & why wouldn’t he? That’s how he makes his living & he’s good at it.
        Would an audience prefer the inarticulate snotty snivelling of a crying person or the understandably world weary take of someone with a platform who feels obliged to comment on a current event?

        • He does deliver a gag, and a pretty good one, with that trademark look to camera, dismisses it in an instant so we understand he’s not joking.

          By “direct address” I thought you meant “directly addressing the issue” which is what he conspicuously avoids here. No “murders”, no names.

          • I think perhaps we concur on this more than it immediately appears, HP, but perhaps you’re pulling Stewart up for being able to see ‘the work’ in his act.

            When we see the artifice of performers plainly, it often jars but I’d contend it doesn’t make it any less sincere.

            I suspect Stewart’s craft also told him that an act such as reading a roll call of the slain would instantly have viewers ( even his nice, liberal viewers) tuning out mentally if not literally.

  15. Heaven forbid that anybody – least of all a mere TV comic – should exhibit sloppy thinking. Off with his head! Because I expended all my cynicism on the tea-tray thread, I choose to believe that he was sincere in what he said. I find my world stays on its axis better if I give people the benefit of the doubt occasionally.

    ‘…the nuanced language of lack of effort…’ Indeed. Let them all suck it up. Shit happens.

  16. Last night I was grumpy for meatworld reasons so I’d like to wind in my cynicism a little… but with just enough play to allow for the fact that I do find the whole performance aspect a bit toe-curling.

  18. The problem is that the whole ‘forget this script, I’m just gonna speak from he heart’ thing is an over-familiar Hollywood trope. By so obviously employing it, Jon Stewart begins from a position of artifice, and as a result the whole thing just looks phony, self-serving and borderline disrespectful to the victims. You don’t really see a man who is genuinely speaking from the heart; you see someone starring in their own third-act climax.

  19. As for cynicism meaning that you don’t care. I’ll remember that next time David Cameron says he cares about poor people. I’m sure we’ll swallow that whole.

  20. South Carolina – a state where the Ku Klux Klan still operate. No idea why we should be surprised at this type of hate crime given the circumstances.

    • I think the OP was about dismay, maybe even disgust rather than surprise. But apparently that’s “virtue signalling”. Which pretty much leaves the armchair lefties amongst us with nothing to say.

      • I agree. “Virtue signalling” is a smug and odious term. I’d never seen Jon Stewart before but I thought that was a succinct, accurate and heartfelt summation of the issue.

        • It’s the right wing equivalent of that stupid “check your privilege” phrase. It allows the user to loftily dismiss anything they dislike without having to think about it.

          • Thank God the right-wing have identified this behaviour and are able to wield a very effective weapon against it. After all, the left have used the strictures of political correctness to stifle discussion for years. That, and the moronic repetitions of accusations of racism, homophobia, Islamaphobia et al to ensure no debate takes place about issues the general public may care about.
            As for ‘check your privilege’, that’s available to all. It’s a particularly relevant mantra when reading the drivel that Polly Toynbee, Laurie Penny and Owen Jones are peddling.

            • So, given the stranglehold the bien pensant politically correct leftie elite have on all debate in this country (all the media are in thrall to the commies obvs), the man (or woman) on the Clapham omnibus’s right to free speech has been repressed. The solution to this is the ad hominem application of the phrase “virtue signalling” to anyone who has the temerity to say, or even think that something is unacceptable unless they have a fully crafted solution to the problem. A somewhat reductive outcome in terms of free speech, but given the corner the right-wing find themselves in in this country, inevitable I suppose.

              Thank God indeed.

              • PC has steadily eroded freedom of speech for some time – it’s of zero concern to you as it does not impinge on the mindless twaddle you enjoy parroting. The man on the bus does find his freedom of expression absolutely curtailed when bien pensants like yourself are only too eager to leap on any unwelcome (to you) comment, foaming with confected outrage, demanding reprisals and bellowing whatever epithet you can grab at, be it ‘racist, sexist, transphobic’..etc etc.
                A couple of recent incidents – professor sacked because he makes leaden joke about women scientists, outrage when’Caitlin’ Jenner referred to as ‘he’.
                ‘Hate speech’ for you is speech you hate to hear.

                • Hahahaaaaaa…I was on a bus this morning, as it happens, and I can assure you that freedom of speech is alive, well and was being vociferously exercised by the bien peasants aboard. Actually, there was quite a bit of confected outrage, the occasional demand for some form of reprisal and quite a bit of epithet bellowing – mainly about ‘fucking immigrants’, you’ll no doubt be pleased to hear.

                  • Interesting. No doubt someone will, as usual, dutifully upload footage of these savages to Youtube so we can all gasp with horror at the views of the lumpen proletariat and tut tut at their racism, Islamophobia …

                • That’s very good. Not a picture of me that I recognise, but doubtless you know better. Exemplary hyperbole. Don’t you find speaking for all the public tiring ? I know I do. But you can obviously give Rod Liddle a run for his money.

                  • I do hope you stood up and lectured them on their ‘false consciousness’, quoting from the works of Dame Toynbee as to the benefits of unlimited immigration for the third world, prior to performing a citizen’s arrest on these counter-revolutionaries.

        • It’s a wonderful phrase, even better than ‘bien pensant’. It beautifully sums up the boastful self-aggrandisement of the individual who is wildly displaying to all and sundry their approved, virtuous views, without said individual doing anything constructive.

          • I think it’s a loathsome phrase, which is basically saying, ‘OK, leftward-leaning public figure on tv, we don’t give a shit about what you say about anything, ever.’

            • It’s not reserved for lefties! The first time I recall thinking that there ought to be a word for this sort of thing was when I first heard “another day in paradise” by Phil Collins. Yes, that Phil Collins, living with his millions in tax exile in Switzerland. Singing about homeless people and pointing out helpfully that “it’s another day for you and me in paradise”.
              Speak for yourself pal.

            • I never think of it as either left/right. “Virtue signalling” means saying something that draws attention to your own virtues, as you see them. Why should this be polarised into left/right?

              • For two reasons: 1) I was drawing an inference from Ian’s enthusiasm for a phrase that in his opinion was even better than ‘bien-pensant’; 2) I was taking a cue from the Kid’s comment above.

                If I’ve got the wrong end of the stick I will write out ‘I will not infer, I will only imply’ 500 times.

                • Mike – for once, I was being slightly tongue in cheek, a touch self-mocking. ‘Virtue signalling’ can come from both sides, though it may be more prevalent on the left due to their more worthy self-image.

  22. Mike – if it turns out to be those on the left it skewers most often, then maybe they should concentrate more on constructive solutions instead of mere virtuous posturing designed purely to show the individual as saintly.

  23. This piece – DFB’s original blog piece – is about Jon Stewart, specifically, his response to the murders.

    All the comments are about Jon Stewart, specifically, his response to the murders. Our attitudes to his attitude. With slight coverage of the media’s coverage. Rather predicatbly spiralling off into left/right assumptions and positions.

    I don’t think a single one of us would or could defend the murders themselves. There’s really not much to say about them.

    So let’s talk about Jon Stewart. Man’s a freakin’ genius.

    • I don’t watch the show. I’m not American. He has a persona and he’s a slick performer. He used his show to make a point. What else could he do?

      The facts are stark. There were 2,977 victims of 9/11. The US military have lost a total of 6,717 personnel in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (there were numerous other deaths in those ‘campaigns’). That brings the total to 9,694 deaths over fifteen years.

      Every single year, there are that many or more firearm related homicides in America, not including ‘accidents’. In 2010, for example, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, there were 11,078 firearm homicides and 19,392 firearm suicides in the U.S.

      Whatever the ‘virtue signalling’, Jon Stewart is right. Jack-shit is going to change. But I agree. He is not a genius.

        • More information in tig’s absolutely-non-virtue-signalling comment than Stewart’s entire performance.

          Podicle up there (‘scuse me for quoting) says Stewart’s speech was “a succinct, accurate and heartfelt summation of the issue.” There was very little, almost no, information in his speech, as heartfelt as it may have been. It was deliberately vague so the audience could hear whatever they wanted to hear. A summation? Certainly for the studio audience. They went home feeling good about themselves. Yeah! That bit about nuanced language of lack of something? That nailed it for me! Those street names? Un-be-fucking-lievable. Phew. Jon Stewart.

        • Having seen that clip and nothing else, there were three points he made that struck me:

          1. The U.S. is prepared to spend billions and decimate entire countries in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’
          2. The U.S. is prepared to do jack-shit about U.S. citizens killing U.S. citizens with firearms, despite them doing so on a huge scale.
          3. Racism is still endemic in America, especially in the south.

          I didn’t hear him come up with any answers.

  24. I don’t know if he’s a genius. But he is the kind of guy we need.

    The right and the left spew vitriol,and polemic at each other. Despite his obvious left leaning, he skewers both sides in the gems way possible, by using humor and ridiculousness.

    It strikes me he is like Ian Hislop; a deep believer in what a country can and should be, and determined to highlight the failings of leaders who fail to live up the ideal. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, and much to be lauded.
    If not him, then who? If not now, then when? And if not here then where?

    Perhaps he doesn’t play well in Britain. But he does here, and for my money deservedly.

    • He’s a brilliant broadcaster, and appears sincere, and his commentary is valuable. He can also be extremely funny.

      There’s a danger here that seeing through his schtick and calling him on it equates with somehow failing to condemn the acts he skillfully skirts around here (count how many times he says “murder” or “racist”), or worse, condoning them.

      R x Ar = Kc Where R is Ratings, Ar is advertising revenue, and Kc is “ker-ching”. That’s the formula. Cynicism has nothing to do with it.

        • Everything he does is scripted and rehearsed to a greater or lesser degree – it’s an act, a performance. No network is going to allow him to go off-script, to tear up (or scribble out) his notes and fly by the seat of his pants, and it’s something he wouldn’t do anyway. I don’t expect anything else from him. You’re asking me to write him a script, or some notes? You want me to put words into his mouth? He pays people for that.

    • Si – I disagree slightly with what you say. It’s absolutely true that, in the US, left and right are polarised and, in effect, do not communicate with one another. Having watched Stewart for many years and enjoyed his show, I noticed recently though that, when he attempted to criticise Obama, the audience were, slightly shocked and very ill at ease and were reduced to mild tittering. He was at his best when he had W, Rumsfeld and Cheney in his sights and also when he had a stronger team around him.
      However, I have to say that I thought he completely bottled it in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He really fumbled that, in my opinion, whether through fear of reprisals or just his reluctance to confront Muslim fundamentalism in case, perish the thought, he may be accused of racism or Islamophobia. He failed utterly that evening to recognise it was an issue of freedom of speech and expression and I was very disappointed in him.
      As regards the gulf between right and left in America, I’d recommend reading ‘Nixonland’ which is very enlightening in addressing this issue.

  25. On my right, PJ O’Rourke – disagree with most of what he says, very funny man.

    On my left, Jon Stewart – agree with most of what he says, very funny man.

    Of course Stewart’s ‘rant’ was scripted, of course he has to be mindful of the Ker Ching factor. But it was, at least to this old hippy liberal, a thoughtful and reflective piece on a truly dreadful event.

    I fear HP you have gone from sceptic to cynic in one mighty bound.

    • I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but one more time:

      – The fact that his act was largely scripted doesn’t mean it’s insincere. That fact that he made it appear unscripted was an unnecessary trick. He could have just spoken about the murders, and the media coverage, whatever he wanted. The hammy old stuff about scribbling out his notes … see Poppy’s comments.

      – The fact that his act was largely scripted doesn’t mean you (“one”) can’t have sympathy for what he says, or that it’s untrue or worthless or whatever. The fact that his piece was a purposefully vague “summation” that would appeal to the most viewers and alienate the fewest has passed some viewers by. Ian asks what his point actually was, and tiggerlion gives as close an answer as possible. There was also stuff about lazy language, and street names … anyway.

      – Seeing his act as what it is – an act – doesn’t make “one” cynical. You admit yourself it that it was scripted – does that make you a cynic? I’m not even “skeptical”, let alone “cynical.” Does knowing how David Copperfield perform his act make “one” cynical? However, seeing it as an impromptu, off-the-cuff, impassioned plea (for … something or other) does indicate a real naivety of the way major networks operate. This isn’t some little cable show, where a host is paid to rant about anything that comes into his mind. This is a major, major deal.

      Okay? I think all of this has been covered already in the comments.

  28. I found Mr Stewart’s piece agreeable. In that I found it very hard to disagree with what he said. I’m sure there are smarter people saying smarter things about how to fix these issues but I haven’t seem them. And I’m sure he got paid a decent wedge whilst he was saying it. But it still made sense to me.

    • I wonder whether Mr Stewart has another speech lined-up about today’s atrocities? I imagine not. Railing against white-on-black murder is a quick win, but when it’s muslims doing the slaughtering, you’re always at risk of committing a social faux-pas.

        • I’ve already made that point in a response to sitheref, somewhere upblog. Stewart completely bottled it in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It was embarrassing in the extreme to see him flounder so badly, terrified that he may make a false step and be accused of being, horror of horrors, racist or Islamophobic.

      • Pish posh, Jim. We all know just how deeply JS feels all loss of human life.

        If I know my boy, he’ll have spent the last 48 hours wistfully staring into space, tapping his pen anxiously against his pad and occasionally essaying a listless scribble.

        Worst of all, he won’t have been able to do his job of being funny, because how can he possibly be expected to perform that vital function in a world which knows such heart rending cruelty?

        I imagine that entire production team are gathered around him right now, arms linked and in silent prayer, hoping, begging for a day when the madness stops and Stewart can once again tickle our sides with his snappy one liners and meaningful looks to camera.

Leave a Reply