Editorial about Jon Stewart in the Boston Globe -

[Mass]

Can you tell me what you think about this story?

I am shared on what he wrote. On one side, I like Stewart and his attacks on the administration, much better than what most TV reporters can do.

On the other hand, given than he is talking to a public that is mostly young and idealistic, is there not a part of thruth in this article? Is it possible that the show pushes out of politics many young people (and that this affects mostly the Democrats and the left, as RW probably watch the program a lot less).

My kids are still too young to be affected (oldest is 16), but may be some of you have ideas about that.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/03/why_jon_stewart_isnt_funny/?p1=MEWell_Pos2

Why Jon Stewart isn't funny

By Michael Kalin | March 3, 2006

THE SELECTION of Jon Stewart as the host for Sunday night's 2006 Oscars undoubtedly marks a career milestone for the aspiring king of late-night comedy. Unfortunately, however, the ascension of Stewart and ''The Daily Show" into the public eye is no laughing matter. Stewart's ever-increasing popularity among young viewers directly correlates with the declining influence of progressive thought in America. Coincidence? I think not. Let me explain.


Meet Joshua Goldberg, a fictional composite of the typical apostle of ''The Daily Show." Born in Newton, Goldberg attended Newton South High School where he played an integral role in securing the school's debate championship. His 3.8 grade point average and impressive array of extracurricular activities earned him a scholarship to Vassar, where he majored in political science and joined a Jewish fraternity. Throughout his formal education, Goldberg stayed up-to-date on national politics through nightly coverage on ''The Daily Show" and even led a petition to protest the genocide in Darfur.

Many of Stewart's die-hard supporters might use this persona as proof that ''The Daily Show" engages disillusioned viewers who otherwise could not be reached. This argument, however, fails to consider the ultimate career path of Josh Goldberg: Upon graduation in 2004, he accepted a prestigious job as an analyst at Morgan Stanley. Although he no longer follows Washington's daily political squabbles, Goldberg gives a significant annual contribution to the Democratic Party.

The tragedy of this portrait is not that investment banking corrupts young souls (although one could argue otherwise), but rather that the students who abandon politics out of a naive self-consciousness often represent our country's most idealistic minds. Stewart's daily dose of political parody characterized by asinine alliteration leads to a ''holier than art thou" attitude toward our national leaders. People who possess the wit, intelligence, and self-awareness of viewers of ''The Daily Show" would never choose to enter the political fray full of ''buffoons and idiots." Content to remain perched atop their Olympian ivory towers, these bright leaders head straight for the private sector.



Michael Kalin is a 2005 graduate of Harvard College.

[karynnj]

1. It's not clear that Goldberg would have entered politics

if instead of watching the Daily show he spent that time reading the Globe. There is nothing in his profile that said he wanted to go into government. It was during the time period where he watched the Daily Show that he was motivated to lead the Darfor petition. He also may, like Corzine or Edwards for example, have a career, make money and then go into politics.

Imagine instead a time warp John Kerry. Kerry's desire to be in government seemed to be there almost from middle school. Watching the Daily Show wouldn't change that. There are far worse things to watch or hear. In one of the recent interviews (the blog one, I think) Kerry spoke of loving the Daily Show. I would imagine that among the current Daily Show audience there have to be at least some future politicians. The subject matter would be interesting to them and all their peers likely see it.

Showing how bad Bush is may fuel someone's desire to change it.

[TayTay]

2. I use some of te stuff that comes up on TDS to talk to my kids

about politics. The Daily Show brings up some very, very serious stuff and can act as a nice gateway to a discussion. (Their coverage of Iraq, under the Mess-o-Potamia' heading has been exceptional. They did win a couple of Peabody Awards for this and I think it was well deserved, but also a sad commentary on the state of media in the US.)

That said, could someone please ask Sen. Kerry to go back and do an interview on the TDS. I think that would be fun. I don't think it would be as pressured as the Aug '04 appearance and it would go a long way toward showing Kerry in a more relaxed state.

[jenndar]

3. Just my opinion, but I'd rather see him on Colbert Report.

I think Stephen's interviews are much, much better.

[TayTay]

4. Do both, a couple of weeks apart.

Colbert is hilarious. I would love to see him ask the esteemed taller Sen from MA, 'Bush: Great President of The Greatest President.' That would be hilarious.

[beachmom]

5. Politics has ALWAYS been full of "buffoons and idiots"

In Germany, they don't have a brilliant show like TDS, yet my husband has about the same opinion of politicians as Jon Stewart. I actually think the opposite of the op-ed: more young people may become interested in becoming involved in politiics due to all of the exposure. If you notice, Stewart will occasionally make a mockery of celebrities, too, yet there still is no shortage of kids who want to become superstars. One could argue that Hollywood is the ultimate place of idiocy as described by the media, yet the people keep coming. I read once that Washington D.C. is the celebrity place for "ugly people" -- now one can disagree on THAT, but the point is that politicians are not usually glamorous, yet they're on TV all the time.

No, the type of person who becomes a politician will continue to do it -- the benefits of it will out weight the costs for them.