In Defense of Jon Stewart
2007; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 24; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/07393180701521031
ISSN1529-5036
Autores Tópico(s)Rhetoric and Communication Studies
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Danielle S. Allen (2004 Allen , D. S. (2004) . Talking to strangers: Anxieties of citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) argues for the importance of trust in democratic polity, and for a definition of rhetoric as the art of trust production. 2. And while the prosecution sees “pontification” in Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, Andrew R. Cline (2004 Cline , A. R. (2004) . Jon Stewart, civic hero, Part 2 … . Retrieved July 18, 2007, from http://rhetorica.net/archives/002736.html . [Google Scholar]), in his analysis of the actual content of the exchange, demonstrates how Stewart advanced eight propositions of deliberative democracy and responsible journalism, including: “The news media have a responsibility to encourage civil, civic discourse”. 3. The point is reinforced by Young and Tisinger (2006 Young, D. G. and Tisinger, R. M. 2006. Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors of exposure to various late-night shows. Press/Politics, 11: 113–134. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 4. As Stewart has said, “If anything is cynical, it's suggesting that your policy has never been ‘stay the course’ when we have thousands of hours of tape showing you using ‘stay the course’ as a talking point” (Dowd, 2006 Dowd , M. ( 2006, November 16 ). America's anchors . Rolling Stone , p. 52 – 58 [Google Scholar], p. 56). 5. One might ask why the Daily Show's depiction of demagogic media tactics and official contradictions is such a rare event in “real” news. “At a New York Times lunch, when Stewart was asked how his show did such a good job digging up clips catching the president and other officials contradicting themselves, the comedian shot back, “A clerk and a video machine” (Dowd, 2006 Dowd , M. ( 2006, November 16 ). America's anchors . Rolling Stone , p. 52 – 58 [Google Scholar], p. 54). 6. Mary Douglas (1999 Douglas , M. (1999) . Jokes . In Implicit meanings: Essays in anthropology (pp. 146 – 164 ). New York : Routledge . [Google Scholar]) points out that one can't get a joke if one doesn't recognize the social experience to which it refers. If the prosecution really believes that the U.S. is as wonderful as it claims, and that the government delivers nothing but public goods, then it could not get the jokes, see the humor, or conclude otherwise than that the Daily Show is cynical. But if one begins with a more realistic—not cynical—view of government, if one sees both school lunch programs and the war in Iraq, for example, then the show's humor becomes both intelligible and valuable. Ditto with the media, who also get a pass in the prosecution's view of the world. For the rest of us, however, as Douglas summarizes, “Humor chastises insincerity, pomposity, stupidity” (p. 148). Unless one believes that large doses of these qualities help rather than harm policy making, there is good reason to see the comic corrective as an important element in democratic governance. Additional informationNotes on contributorsRobert HarimanRobert Hariman is Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University
Referência(s)