Culture Jon Stewart’s Real Legacy Is A Generation Of Smug, Lazy, Dishonest News Consumers - Stewart used comedy as a replacement for intellectual rigor. Behind the smug faces and pregnant pauses is nothing but partisan hackery.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
L | A
By Eoin Lenihan
Screen-Shot-2023-08-24-at-7.51.3.png

In a recent tweet critiquing the legacy of Jon Stewart, I summarized that for my generation, who were coming of age during 9/11 and the war in Iraq, we were desperately in search of anyone who could cut through the corporate media partisanship. We craved an everyman to tell it like it was.

We were given Jon Stewart.

And just like he taught us, we became smug, disingenuous, and lazy thinkers.

The post went viral with Elon Musk weighing in, stating, “I rather liked the old Daily Show and Colbert Report. But now they’ve gone off in a direction that is…” Thousands agreed.

Three hours later Stewart tweeted, “There is no finer legacy than having the right people hate you. Frauds, liars and hack ideologues. Discuss.” So I thought I should.


Bush, ‘Crossfire,’ and the Birth of an Everyman​


It’s Dec. 13, 2000. While all major news outlets analyze George W. Bush’s acceptance speech along predictably partisan lines ad nauseam, a fresh-faced Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show,” features a two-second clip of Bush saying, “I was not elected to serve one party…”

The camera cuts to Stewart who looks us straight in the eyes: “You were not elected.”

Boom! This was the guy who was going to hold our politicians’ feet to the fire and smash the news media corporations that propped them up. This was our guy.

In 2004, with the war in Iraq raging, Stewart appeared on CNN’s long-running debate show, “Crossfire.” He refused to play by their rules and instead chastised hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson. “What you do is partisan hackery,” he said launching into a hostile critique. “You’re doing theatre when you should be doing debate.”

It was a brutal assault. He positioned himself perfectly as the disaffected’s everyman. “Come work for us, the people. … We need your help. Right now you’re helping the politicians and corporations and we’re left out there.” It was a star turn.


Leftist Hackery and the Death of the Everyman​


In 2004, we forgave Stewart for his obvious support for John Kerry. Anyone was better than Bush, right? But throughout the Obama administration, Stewart increasingly became a mouthpiece for the president. In 2011 and again in 2014, Stewart was secretly invited to the White House to talk policy.

After that second meeting, in which the two spoke about the Russian intervention in Crimea, Stewart returned to “The Daily Show” with a laser focus on Putin. In 2015, the L.A. Times perfectly encapsulated the relationship between the two in a piece entitled “When Barack Obama met Jon Stewart: A Love Story.

Just how did the guy who accused the “Crossfire” hosts of “partisan hackery” become the ultimate political insider who literally took his orders from the Oval Office and shilled them on his show under the guise of comedy?


The Jon Stewart Playbook​


There is a deeper and more uncomfortable truth about Jon Stewart, and it is this. He has always been, as he would put it, a hack. A witty one, but a hack nonetheless.

As kids, we were dazzled by Stewart’s mugging to the camera, pregnant pauses, slick video montages, and selective editing. It was effective — and funny — to reduce Bush’s speech to a two-second clip and a one-liner. However, it was also smug and condescending, and it used comedy as a replacement for intellectual rigor.

And behind that cloak of comedy, there has always been a strong leftist partisanship.

A good example of Stewart’s shtick is a recent episode of his new series “The Problem With.” In “The Problem With White People,” he opens with a montage of (mainly CNN) reporters calling for a “racial reckoning” after the death of George Floyd.

He mock stumbles over the word “reparations.” “Oh so you guys (news reporters) are finally ready to talk about racial repar…reckoning” — pregnant pause — awkward eye contact with the camera. Audience laughs. His media critique is a sad imitation of his visceral attack on “Crossfire.” He has become the establishment, and those reporters he mildly rebukes adore.

Instead of the media, Stewart’s real fire is reserved for Mike Pence who awkwardly states, “Now it’s time for us to have ears to hear [black concerns].” Stewart crudely jokes, “Oh, good, because I’ve been using mine for f-cking.” It shows that his naked hostility toward conservatives holds as strong as it did back in the early ’00s.

It wasn’t just about Bush. He’s actually a partisan hack and increasingly blunt with age.


Race-Baiting and Bending Facts​


Later in the episode, a black woman claims that they burn cities because they are not theirs: “We own nothing.” There follows a rousing montage of historical black activists lamenting the ongoing vestiges of slavery in the USA. It ends with an 1852 quote by Frederick Douglass strategically placed to convince his audience that nothing has changed since before the Civil War.

Stewart also compares the crack crisis in black communities in the ’80s to the ongoing opioid crisis in Appalachia, claiming we make excuses for deprived white people but not deprived black people.

As a case in point, he shows a montage of news reports on black riots in Philadelphia in which reporters are critical of participants before showing reporters playfully covering the carnage in the city after the Eagles Super Bowl win. It is deeply cynical.

If he were ethical, he would have compared like with like. Deprived blacks burn their cities, deprived Appalachians do not. But this is not new. He pulled this exact same bait and switch when he covered the Baltimore riots in 2014. It is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Attempting to prove it’s still 1852, he presents several misleading slides on home ownership, segregation, and median household wealth. One states that on average, household wealth for white high school graduates ($115,000) is greater than for black college graduates ($51,000). The figure he flashes on the screen is striking.

How can it be that white people with a high school diploma are earning $115,000 working in McDonalds? Obviously, they aren’t. They made a conscious decision to go into manual trades like plumbing, roofing, etc., and they work damn hard. It is an option open to members of any race who instead chose college.

Another complicating issue is choice of college major. A recent Brookings Institution study showed that black students are much less likely to major in high-paying STEM subjects compared to other races. The number of black PhDs in STEM is well below average across the races while over-represented in lower-paying professions like education.

Deceptively, the graph Stewart shows is household wealth. Obviously, in households with two parents, there will be a higher average income. Across all races, black families are dramatically less likely to have two married parents in the home (36 percent) than whites (74 percent) or Asians (85 percent). But why include any of this nuance when one can just blame racism for the disparity?


The Real Legacy of Stewart​


Closing out his show on race, Stewart again mock stumbles over the word “reparations” and states that it sets off “white people’s ‘They’re coming for our sh-t’ alarm.” And this was his point all along. It wasn’t a comedy routine. It’s time for white Americans to pay reparations because it’s still 1852.

This older, more tired Jon Stewart is like a sad tribute act to his younger self. He falls back on a trusted method to sell his political messaging: the gags, the mugging to the camera, the slick video montages, and the mild rebuke of adoring news media hosts before unloading on the nearest Republican he can blame the issue of the day on.

It is a threadbare routine. Still, he goes through the motions.

In 2004, Jon Stewart took CNN’s “Crossfire” off the air by accusing them of partisan hackery and engaging in political theater. The sad truth is, Jon Stewart has long become a victim of his own criticism.

He is the ultimate political insider profiting from tearing America apart, all the while pretending to have its best interests at heart. He poisoned my generation’s ability to conduct civil discourse, and now he calls us “liars, frauds, and hack ideologues” as he lines his pockets.

That is his legacy.
 
Last edited:
In his book, Jon himself says his show was a failure. That presenting the news as a comedy thing serves no one except to bolster people's own beliefs. He mentions the Loadsamoney song as another example of the same failure. The song is supposed to be a critique on wealth, but he found out that some people actually unironically liked the song which was supposed to be lampooning them.

The truth is though, the news (as we know it today) does nothing but lionize people's already held beliefs. Josh hit the nail on the head when he wrote the header of this board.
1692980480928.png

I've been saying this for years, that piece of performance art on Crossfire was peak "hey look at this problem, stop it! / no, I don't have a solution or anything better to replace it with".
This is one of the dumbest possible takes on anything imaginable. Crossfire was a retarded filler show that would incidentally become the blueprint of what modern news media would become, and no, it didn't need to exist, or be replaced by anything.

This is like watching a plane disintegrate mid-flight, turning to the designer, and going "Holy shit, that shouldn't happen!" only for them to turn around and go, "Hey, you design a better plane!"

We still can't treat mental illness correctly, but people as a whole were smart enough to know that lobotomies don't work. The false notion that you need to provide your own perfect solution before telling someone to stop doing something stupid is blitheringly idiotic.
Jon Stewart always gave the appearance of someone who was willing to, and occasionally did, criticize both sides, even if he leaned a particular way.
I remember that era and he 100% was willing to criticize both sides. Over time though he and the show as a whole became more and more unwilling to do that and it definitely showed. By the end of it, the show became almost to the level of pozzed that it is today. You also have to remember, The vast majority of this stuff wasn't written by Jon, but by faggots getting out of college and joining the writing room and then probably going to the Occupy Wallstreet shitshow after work.

Stewart himself was changed over time, and I'm fairly sure he knew he was out of the game when he cucked to Trevor Noah over a segment where Jon suggested Hermain Caine could not read, as a joke. Of course Trevor, being a nigger, immediately accused Jon of saying all black people are illiterate niggers, which isn't true. Only an overwhelming majority of niggers can't read.

It was not long after that spat Jon got down on his hands and knees and went "I'm sorry nigger, have my show. I being a white and successful Jewish person don't deserve it." and left.
 
Jon Stewart always gave the appearance of someone who was willing to, and occasionally did, criticize both sides, even if he leaned a particular way. However, I think the writer of that article may be right about damn near everything if Stewart is unwilling to criticize the woke, a group that behaves exactly like the evangelicals did in the 2000s.
He did that gay bullshit where his criticism of Democrats was that they were being too mask off and Republicans refused to “compromise”.

Anytime a Republican actually proposed a solution outside of the “we’re going to do nothing outside losing with dignity”, he’d go on the attack. He had a script that in retrospect is disgusting.
Criticism of Bush really doesn’t matter, everyone was doing that.
 
Jon Stewart always gave the appearance of someone who was willing to, and occasionally did, criticize both sides, even if he leaned a particular way.
Are you fucking high? The only time he criticized democrats is when they weren't pushing the proto-woke agenda hard enough.

as someone who came of political age during the early 2000s and was a big fan of his at the time, i have to agree with this entire article.
In 2000 it was very easy to go after Dubya and appear even-handed. In 2007 on it was 100% sucking obama's cock. Obama was never taken to task for anything.
 
Just how did the guy who accused the “Crossfire” hosts of “partisan hackery” become the ultimate political insider who literally took his orders from the Oval Office and shilled them on his show under the guise of comedy?
Because his last name is Leibowitz; and no one gets on TV without adhering to what the master demands.

There is a deeper and more uncomfortable truth about Jon Stewart, and it is this. He has always been, as he would put it, a hack. A witty one, but a hack nonetheless. As kids, we were dazzled by Stewart’s mugging to the camera, pregnant pauses, slick video montages, and selective editing. It was effective — and funny — to reduce Bush’s speech to a two-second clip and a one-liner. However, it was also smug and condescending, and it used comedy as a replacement for intellectual rigor. And behind that cloak of comedy, there has always been a strong leftist partisanship.
Having it spelled out to me like this; John Stewart was the OG Internet Commentary Community. And that lone, deserves death.
 
Last edited:
Crossfire was a show on CNN that had Pat Buchanan as a host. That would be like if they gave Nick Fuentes a show today. It was one crazy right-winger and one crazy left-winger as hosts, with one guest from each side and they'd argue but find like 15-20% agreement and as a viewer you'd think they were all nuts but you understood where they were coming from and formed your own opinions.

Before Jon Stewart's holier-than-thou preening created "don't platform that voice" culture you had places to see multiple sides of an argument and how each side would counter the other's points. McLaughlin Group, Firing Line, and some of their clones were attempts to get different viewpoints in; people used to like to have and watch discussions. Modern news media is nothing like these shows, The Daily Show is. Maybe Rush Limbaugh. It became more "he's my guy" than "what are we all thinking?"
 
I feel weird about articles like these because I don't know in what universe Jon Stewart was ever an "everyman" who criticized both sides. It was very obvious from the start he had a left-wing slant and his only criticisms of Democrats were that they didn't Democrat harder. Was there ever a single conservative stance that he didn't hate and ridicule? When I was in middle and high school if you watched him it was the same as saying you and your family were libs. No one who wasn't already left-leaning watched him.
 
Humor tend to rely on exaggerations, so you if you are making a humoristic news/political show you have to make a choice to either focus on it being funny or informative. These shows tries to do both, and end up neither being funny nor informative. And from there it's a short road to hide your poorly argued points behind it being a joke.
 
Are you fucking high? The only time he criticized democrats is when they weren't pushing the proto-woke agenda hard enough.
He tried going after Eric Holder for the Fast & Furious scandal.

There was hardly any reaction from the audience. The Pavolovian pause and smirk didn't work on democrat scandals.
 
Last edited:
There is a scene in Idiocracy that I think perfectly demonstrates the Jon Stewart effect. Not Sure is giving an impassioned speech and winning over the crowd in the arena, the idiots are listening to him. The camera then cuts to Beef Supreme who just shrugs and makes a smug "that just happened" face. The audience laughs, now they're on his side again.

No wonder the leftists started turning on that movie after a couple of years.
 
Crossfire was a show on CNN that had Pat Buchanan as a host. That would be like if they gave Nick Fuentes a show today. It was one crazy right-winger and one crazy left-winger as hosts, with one guest from each side and they'd argue but find like 15-20% agreement and as a viewer you'd think they were all nuts but you understood where they were coming from and formed your own opinions.

Before Jon Stewart's holier-than-thou preening created "don't platform that voice" culture you had places to see multiple sides of an argument and how each side would counter the other's points. McLaughlin Group, Firing Line, and some of their clones were attempts to get different viewpoints in; people used to like to have and watch discussions. Modern news media is nothing like these shows, The Daily Show is. Maybe Rush Limbaugh. It became more "he's my guy" than "what are we all thinking?"
Even Fox News had Hannity and Colmes for over a decade. Jon Stewart and the retards that fell from the Daily Show tree had it easy, they picked all the low hanging during the Bush administration and blasting Republicans when the consensus for Bush and the war in Iraq was in the shitter. Then during the Obama administration we saw they were just truly water carriers for the Democrat Party and had no real beliefs or morals and now Jon Stewart spends his time pinning medals on actual Nazis because Democrats and neocons told him to.
 
The issue isn't Jon Stewart, the issue is people who get their news from a comedy show of all things, and sadly this becoming more common with the growth of YouTube and social media. And the right wing is just as bad for it, just their shows are like Louder with Crowder rather than something that gets tv air time.

If you enjoy news-based comedy shows fine, but don't make it your source of news
This has been a problem at least since George Carlin, whose entire schtick was saying "white people are lame and Republicans are evil" in just the right smug, sardonic tone to trick people into thinking they were listening to comedy. It was probably an issue even before that, but he's the earliest example of a propagandist disguised as a comedian I can think of.
 
Jon Leibowitz’s whole shtick was pushing left wing neoliberalism and when called out he would throw up his hands and pretend to be nothing more than a jokemaker. He doesn’t get to play it both ways.

He did have an amazing skill in knowing when to get the fuck out. Any later and his Generation X liberalism would’ve been called out and any earlier he wouldn’t have properly prepared millennials with enough social justice outrage.

Funny thing is that nobody gives a shit about him in current year plus eight. Liberals between the ages of 25 and 45 pretended he was the best thing since bagels and lox with lots of schmear but now he is considered yet another white make gatekeeper that held back woke truth, if anyone ever remembers him in the first place.
 
You don't need to write all that...we already agree.

Job Stewart should be swinging from a noose.
 
No his real legacy is the endless shitty left wing clones of him with shows or youttube channels. The blight of Stephen Colbert will damn Stewart to the ice lake for eternity.
 
It was very obvious from the start he had a left-wing slant and his only criticisms of Democrats were that they didn't Democrat harder
Made even more obvious when Colbert had his own show that was more right-wing.

There was even an episode where the two of them and Conan O'Brien were invading each others shows and feuding or something... i forgot what it was about exactly.
 
This has been a problem at least since George Carlin, whose entire schtick was saying "white people are lame and Republicans are evil" in just the right smug, sardonic tone to trick people into thinking they were listening to comedy. It was probably an issue even before that, but he's the earliest example of a propagandist disguised as a comedian I can think of.
Which is why I find it sus when people say Carlin would be based in today's world.
 
Back
Top Bottom