Tom Junod's fascinating profile of Jon Stewart

Except the vast majority of the quotes do not support his notions. Junod spends thousands of words repeating the same basic message -- he thinks Stewart is, in some ways, the same opportunist as the media caricatures he skewers on a nightly basis. But nobody really agrees with him. Junod repeats a thoughtful email from Rick Sanchez, then essentially says that Sanchez is wrong about Stewart. That's pretty fucking arrogant - Sorry, Rick. I know you have interacted with Stewart on a human level. But I'm Tom Junod. And you've got it all wrong.

What Junod misses is that the mix of disgust and superiority that Stewart displays in the video clips is very much evident during his Daily Show routines. The thing about Stewart that reverberates most is not his one-liners or his crusades, but the look of sheer contempt that washes over his face after a bit that really pisses him off. As the camera pulls back to commercial, and he breaks character, you can see just how disgusted he is.

Frankly, I don't understand Junod's point. And whatever it was, he didn't do a very good job of building a case for it, other than to say, "Listen to all these people who know Jon Stewart talk about him in a way that supports the popular narrative about him. Well, trust me, they're all wrong."

 

Someone loves him some Jon Stewart.

 

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who don't get what Stewart does.

 

These "You leave my friend Jon alone!" posts kind of prove Junod's point.

 

Kinda like the Bible that way I guess.

 

I don't see any of those posts. My post was not meant to defend Stewart, it was meant to criticize the story, which was poorly executed. The only voice in that story that supports Junod's thesis is Junod's voice. Everyone else more or less talks about Stewart in positive terms.

Take this portion:

Junod is the one calling him invulnerable, unassailable, unimpeachable. Not Liebman.

Again, I just don't see how Junod builds his case, other than his opening depiction of the cult of personality that will always evolve around a guy like Stewart, and the heavy-handedness of his security staff (this just in: all security staffers have an over-inflated sense of the importance of their jobs).

Would love to hear another side, but it doesn't sound like you have much in the way of critical thought to add.

 

Have you watched any of the videos mentioned? When I saw the Maddow video, for instance, last year, I made exactly the same comments Junod did. Why does Junod need to quote something someone else said? Sure seemed like he's watched enough footage and talked to enough people to draw a conclusion.

 

The story has a certain tone to it.

Sort of, "look at me. I can write, really well, and I'll say bad things about Jon Stewart. No one does that. Read me, read me."

I am a little disappointed in Stewart that while he wields a gigantic amount of power he doesn't seem to think he does. And I'm not really clear on the why. This article didn't help that.

Truth be told, I don't watch Stewart anymore. Not because I don't think he's funny. Or because off camera he screams at his staff and throws newspapers. Or the palpable sense of disappointment he feels when he watches the media in action as evidence by his time on screen.

No, I just don't watch him anymore. Same goes for Colbert. I just don't have that extra 45 minutes in my life to watch both shows.

That all being said, I really do think that Stewart is angling for something greater than being the host of a basic cable talk show. I just don't know what. This article didn't illuminate that either.

Stewart reminds me of the guy who got a peek behind the curtain and instead of being excited, he threw up because of what he saw.

His media criticism is pretty much balls on, from what I've gathered. But only because he's the only person doing it. Does anyone think people buy the next issue of CJR for its takedown of whatever?

 

Wait, are you really saying he's a news anchor?

He has no real reporting staff at his disposal
His staff does sattire and sattire only
He is a comedian doing a show on a comedy channel,

Yet, he's supposed to be a news anchor?

I don't understand how anybody, especially somebody in the business of news, can opine that what he does is "a news anchor" job.


Don't get me wrong. I get the notion of Stewart having evolved into something far too influential for what he is supposed to be. I get the notion that this has made Stewart play the part more than he should. But to call him a news anchor? C'mon.

 

Becasuse he's not a columnist? Maybe there's different rules for magazines and stories liks this.
But still, You don't say it. Let someone else say it.
In this case, I'm not sure he could find someone to say what he thought, look at the Sanchez e-mail exchange someone pointed out earlier.

 

I think you're trying to fit the piece into our neat little newspaper boxes, which is a mistake. It's a lengthy opinion piece. An essay. It's fine. I mean, one can disagree with his opinion and his premise and his execution. But the idea that he didn't write in the inverted pyramid style and use "said" instead of "says" doesn't bother me, either.