Tom Junod's fascinating profile of Jon Stewart

It's labeled a profile of Stewart. A profile, yet Junod's attempt doesn't seem to fit. He's trying to mash a square peg into a round hole and tell us it fits.
If its an opinion piece tell me as much. An essay? Ok maybe, but again the facts Junod ferrets out don't seem to support HIS conclusions.


I get the lines are blurred with magazine writing.,. but it's still much better to have someone else tell the story you want to write, report or portray.
It would have helped Junod's efforts if his interview subjects supported his "story."

 

I strongly disagree with your premise here.

 

I like Stewart the comedian. I think when people start to make him out to be a cultural icon, that's where I get lost.

I think about 98 percent of the time he does it perfectly. I think there are times where he starts to believe that he's as great as some say and thinks he can do no wrong.

 

For guy who likes evidence I am suprised. Really.

 

I don't disagree with it in all instances. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that you want to apply.

 

It's a well-written think piece. Of course, to appreciate it, one needs to be able to, well, you know.

 

I am admittedly and shamefully tooting my own horn here, but I wrote this on the site just before the Stewart rally:

<i>"What defines it as "entertainment?" Because Stewart and Colbert are actors? The two of them try so hard to put all of their work under the umbrella of "don't take this seriously" when, quite clearly, they take themselves and their show deadly serious, and know their viewers do the same."</i>

So, my feelings about Junod's piece are pretty obvious.

 

I don't think that's what Junod was writing. I think he was writing that Jon Stewart can be an asshole and opportunist like just about anybody else can, but he denies it - and is allowed to - in an Olympian fashion by a cavalcade of sycophants and liberals who very much want him to have his cake and eat it, too. In other words, he's treated like a lot of celebrities.

The shit Colbert pulled not long back in Iowa is along the same lines. <i>Oh, you don't want to play along with our joke? Well, screw you. Now you're really gonna play along with it, worthless local TV station, because we'll shame you into it</i>. In other words, some Des Moines TV producer who's just trying to get through the week like anybody else - and doing their job the right way by not airing some phony PAC ad - has some dumbass, sanctimonious pest from Comedy Central up his or her ass because of some fake Rick Parry ad.

 

Feels good to just get it out there doesn't it?

 

Are they serious because they care about their work as comedians (like Mike Myers) or serious because they want wield influence like their serious news counterparts?
And I'm not sure the audience takes them seriously. I don't - granted I don't watch either show, but I have variuous clips. For fuck's sake they are on Comedy Central. Not ABC or CNBC. The Comedy aspect of the channel should tip their hand.
These guys are along the same lines as Chris Rock, a standp comedian who offers insightful social commentary. But he's hardly a movement.

 

Just curious, how much of that description do you think held true for Carlin, too?

 

This is one of the biggest WTF? sentences ever typed on a board for journalists.