Tom Junod's fascinating profile of Jon Stewart

Great, great article. It was cynicism rooted in truth without being overly cynical precisely because it was funny. It was The Daily Show on literary steroids. Jon Stewart the persona would hate it; Jon Stewart the man would love it.

 

Wait, you found the article funny?
Specifically, what part?
I read four pages before stopping and never found anything even remotely amusing, funny, chuckleworthy or anecdotal.
That was part of the reason I clicked on the link - 'cause I find Stewart entertaining.

 

That's a great summary.

 

The magazine is worth buying this month, from Jones on JT, to the Stewart article to the naked pictures of Carla Gugino...

 

This is the kind of journalism I enjoy most. For one, Junod clearly did his research and his homework. He avoids using too many quotes because they would get in the way of the real story, but I think it's at least possible he did speak to Stewart --briefly -- and got a whole lot of nothing, so he continued on. I also don't think that, for an Esquire feature, it was imperative to talk to Stewart. Stewart's had plenty of chances to speak for himself. He gets that chance every night.

I think the layering of detail drove me directly to Junod's point, with which I happened to agree before beginning the article. The point was not that Jon Stewart is a bad person or Jon Stewart is a liberal Glenn Beck or anything like that. Junod was clearly and efficiently breaking down Stewart's hypocrisy when he claims he has no agenda. Because Jon Stewart's agenda may not be partisan, but it's existed for at least a decade.

I wonder how many of the critics of the article are the types who don't particularly enjoy Esquire. In a previous thread, we discussed the difference between Esquire readers and New Yorker readers. I'm an Esquire reader who also likes The New Yorker. I'm sure that colored my opinion on this type of article. But I also think you're crazy if you think he under-reported. The best, most authoritative writing and reporting doesn't require constant citation.

 

Evil, did you not find the article smart either? It was smart and funny -- often both at the same time -- throughout.

 

It was smart (long and dry and smart)... I understand Junod's position. And I can't say I disagree.
But as for funny - ha ha funny - I missed it.

And enjoy Esquire and much of Junod's writing. ... Just not this one.

 

/tips cap. Perfect summary. Elliott's too.

I just think it takes an incredibly high level of intellect to be able to construct a piece like this. You can see stuff like this here when Alma posts. Even if I don't agree with it, I think the way the argument is constructed is fascinating. I used the analogy of a tight rope walk, but I'm not sure that's quite right. Maybe it's more like constructing a spider web. Each piece is strengthened by the next, and when you get to the end you see what's been done. And again, this is coming from someone who reveres Stewart. I still think Junod speaks a lot of uncomfortable truths about the man. As YGBFKM said, Jon Stewart, the man who delights in snaring someone in their own contradictions, would have to appreciate it if he could be objective about it.

 

I almost started on thread on the Jones article on JT. Considering how every Jones thread gets locked, I decided against it.

A very good piece. I've come around on Jones. I'm sure he'll be relieved to know that this former hack is now on his bandwagon.

 

Um, that won't help you get into Elaine's.

 

It'd be a little late for that.