1) Wait, since when is Jon Stewart "physically fit"? (And didn't the last widespread article that criticized him keep harping on the notion that he was old and sick-looking?)
2) I second sarken on the anti-intellectualism issue.
3) This notion that the Daily Show's comedy only works for frivolous hipsters who don't really care about the issues has been around for years and years, and I'm sick of it. When I first started watching, Bush had just been re-elected, and every joke was an affirmation: "Other people see how ridiculous this is. Other people are angry about it too. You're not alone."
These days, the laughter acts as a release valve. Critics seem to believe that true investment means being earnest and straightforward and angry all the time, when human psychology doesn't work that way. A 24/7 diet of anger, no matter how justified, will burn you out eventually. Processing some of the frustration through sarcasm and funny faces can be what activists need to break the tension, sleep soundly, and wake up refreshed and better able to face the next day's worth of work to be done.
4) I wish every article that criticized Stewart wouldn't act as if it was the first to stumble upon the notion that you're allowed to criticize Stewart.
5) I also wish these articles would stop hiding behind "ooh, look at us, we're standing up to the soulless establishment that says criticizing Stewart is blasphemy" when they're making stupid criticisms.
And yes, even speaking as one of the arrogant acolytes, I think there are non-stupid criticisms to be made. I would love to see more posts focusing on "this thing Stewart said/did is wrong" (his praise of O'Reilly, for instance, could fall under this category) and leaving out all the "Stewart is not saying/doing this thing I wish he would say/do" (e.g., complaints about the lack of "serious policy proposals" at the Rally).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baggyeyes![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 05:21 am (UTC)1) Wait, since when is Jon Stewart "physically fit"? (And didn't the last widespread article that criticized him keep harping on the notion that he was old and sick-looking?)
2) I second
3) This notion that the Daily Show's comedy only works for frivolous hipsters who don't really care about the issues has been around for years and years, and I'm sick of it. When I first started watching, Bush had just been re-elected, and every joke was an affirmation: "Other people see how ridiculous this is. Other people are angry about it too. You're not alone."
These days, the laughter acts as a release valve. Critics seem to believe that true investment means being earnest and straightforward and angry all the time, when human psychology doesn't work that way. A 24/7 diet of anger, no matter how justified, will burn you out eventually. Processing some of the frustration through sarcasm and funny faces can be what activists need to break the tension, sleep soundly, and wake up refreshed and better able to face the next day's worth of work to be done.
4) I wish every article that criticized Stewart wouldn't act as if it was the first to stumble upon the notion that you're allowed to criticize Stewart.
5) I also wish these articles would stop hiding behind "ooh, look at us, we're standing up to the soulless establishment that says criticizing Stewart is blasphemy" when they're making stupid criticisms.
And yes, even speaking as one of the arrogant acolytes, I think there are non-stupid criticisms to be made. I would love to see more posts focusing on "this thing Stewart said/did is wrong" (his praise of O'Reilly, for instance, could fall under this category) and leaving out all the "Stewart is not saying/doing this thing I wish he would say/do" (e.g., complaints about the lack of "serious policy proposals" at the Rally).