Our Moment of Zen: Saying Goodbye to Jon Stewart
Few things can humble me more quickly than a brief trip to the Home Depot. During a recent project, I immediately became lost among the store’s countless plumbing supplies. When I sought the help of an employee—a former contractor—he looked at me with what appeared to be the disgust of an English professor being asked to spell ‘cat’ and grunted toward a shelf before shuffling off in the opposite direction.
Fortunately, a few moments later a young employee approached me and asked how he could help. He immediately pointed out the items I needed and described how they should be applied. It dawned on me then that I’d just witnessed a small act of translation right there in the plumbing aisle. By listening to my questions, someone had helped me understand—despite my ignorance and an overwhelming amount of options on the shelves—what I actually needed to complete the job.
My small moment of relief and gratitude was lost on the employee but not on me. In many ways my humbling foray into home improvement mirrors the innumerable acts of translation we try to make daily in the digital age. We are constantly overloaded with endless oceans of information and complexity but we lack the ability to stay afloat, much less fundamentally make sense of much of it. Richard Saul Wurman referred to it as “information anxiety,” which he described as “the black hole between data and knowledge” and “the widening gap between what we understand and what we think we should understand.”
For millions of us over the past 16 years, Jon Stewart has been a bridge over that black hole in coping with the American political landscape. His departure from “The Daily Show” on August 6 leaves many of us with a different type of anxiety now: whom can we trust to give us the daily dose of sanity we require in our polarized nation?
Though no one could have seen it at the time, Stewart’s debut on “The Daily Show” in 1999 was well timed. Our body politic’s polarization was growing in the wake of the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the disputed presidential election in 2000. At the same time an explosion in electronic media occurred. Along with it came a bottomless need for content that was being filled by an ever-growing punditocracy who helped turn news media into the three-ring blood sport it is today.
Stewart stepped into that mix as a comedian who was not particularly known for political satire, much less topical humor. Prior to arriving at “The Daily Show,” he had spent most of the ’90s hosting a few short-lived talk shows and playing supporting roles in films like Adam Sandler’s “Big Daddy” and guest spots on “The Nanny” and HBO’s “The Larry Sanders Show.” It’s not as if Stewart came out of nowhere, but certainly no one could have predicted that he would develop into what he has become.
And what he’s become is one of the most incisive and intelligent commentators on politics and media in the United States. Those who simply try to dismiss Stewart as a liberal apologist would do well to read Jacob Gershman’s “Why Neoconservative Pundits Love Jon Stewart” in New York Magazine, in which conservatives confess that “The Daily Show” is one of the few places where the host is “fair” and “fundamentally wants to talk about the issues.”
The “fake news” is not a new phenomenon by any means. “The Onion” has been around since 1988, and “Saturday Night Live” has had their Weekend Update segment in one form or another for 40 years, to name just two examples. But what Stewart has accomplished is different. People look to “The Daily Show” not simply to laugh but to understand and gain some insight into the endless sound bites and spin that now constitute the highly mediated world of American politics. Under Stewart’s leadership, the show has been as era-defining as “All in the Family” was in the early 1970s.
The truth is that it wasn’t simply Stewart who created this phenomenon; his audience was a willing collaborator as well. The sort of media satire “The Daily Show” has produced over 16 years couldn’t have had the impact it has had without an audience that has been steeped in media/marketing/spin since birth and has become sophisticated enough to see the substance and critique behind the humor. This younger audience gets their information in countless ways—the web, television, social media, etc.; it is Stewart and his team at “The Daily Show” who offer context and candor.
And over those 16 years there has been abundant need not only for context and candor but for outrage, sadness and every emotion in between. Hanging chads, September 11, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Osama Bin Laden, the economic collapse, the election of our first African American president and the debate over health care…just a small sampling of the issues “The Daily Show” has taken on. In the process of entertaining and informing it’s also helped viewers—myself included—feel less alienated and alone in our complex world.
“'It can be said of three men that, in their time as communicators, this nation hung on their words, waited in eager anticipation of what they were going to observe and report and treat in their special way—Mark Twain, Will Rogers and Walter Cronkite.” When a UPI senior editor wrote this hyperbolic assessment of Cronkite’s retirement in 1981, television news consisted of three major broadcast networks, cable television was in its infancy, CNN was less than a year old and Rupert Murdoch’s major U.S. media outlet was the New York Post.
To say that we live in a different media age would be an epic understatement. In evolutionary terms, news media over the past 35 years has evolved from harnessing fire to nuclear proliferation. The simpler world in which Cronkite plied his trade has fragmented beyond recognition. In the information age, Jon Stewart’s great contribution has been to hold up a fun house mirror to our shattered body politic and show us how those fragments might still fit together.
Thanks for your comment, Michael, and for the citations you provided. By way of clarification, in praising Stewart for his contribution to the national dialogue, I'm not claiming to have loved or even agreed with everything he's done on his show. But if that's the bar, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone--myself included--worthy of praise.
As for snark, I would agree that in some people's hands it can simply be a cheap form of comedic posturing but I would disagree with Camille Paglia's assessment that Jon Stewart is an example of snark. The Daily Show traffics in political and cultural satire and while there may not be a clear border between the two, for my money Bill Maher is a far better example of snarkiness than Stewart. Satirical comedy can be a blunt instrument sometimes but it's clear to me that--as the conservative pundits admitted--he's clearly interested in discussing the issues fairly.
Regarding your comment:
"I also find it mind-boggling that McGarvey and apparently many young people regard Stewart’s show as a news source."
As I tried to point out in the piece, the media age we live in is in complete overdrive. We are assaulted by messaging 24/7. We've also been trying to figure out how to live in a confusing post 9/11 world that at times has resembled an absurdist political comedy (eg: the war in Iraq over non existent WMDs, Hurricane Katrina, the Birther scandal etc). When our politics become a surrealist exercise, the Swiftian political satire of Stewart speaks volumes more than any conventional newscast can.