- The Washington Times - Friday, October 29, 2004

Are you tired of info-tainers totally blurring the line between news and entertainment? Fed up with feuding TV spin doctors passing for reasoned debate? Is that your problem, Bunky?

Well, take heart, friend. You are not alone. Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central, feels your pain. And when he recently had a rare opportunity to say so, right in the face of CNN’s “Crossfire” hosts, Tucker (“From the right”) Carlson and Paul (“From the left”) Begala, he let them have it.

Conservative commentator Carlson and Democratic campaign consultant Begala had invited Mr. Stewart to talk about his new book. Instead, he scolded their show for presenting a weapon of mass distortion, partisan arguments that are intended less to inform the public, in Mr. Stewart’s view, than to score political points, the video equivalent of mud wrestling while the republic sinks into the ooze.

“See, the thing is, we need your help,” Mr. Stewart said in his most earnest let’s-get-serious voice. “Right now, you’re helping the politicians and the corporations. You’re part of their strategies. You are partisan — what do you call it? — hacks.”

Ah, the effrontery. Tucker-on-the-Right responded testily that Mr. Stewart’s recent soft interview with John Kerry (Sample: “Is it true that every time I use ketchup your wife gets a nickel?”) made the comedian-host look like a “butt-boy” for the campaign.

“If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you’re more than welcome to,” Mr. Stewart responded. “You’re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.”

Ah, so that’s the difference between the two shows: Mr. Stewart follows puppets, while “Crossfire” follows Judy Woodruff and leads into Wolf Blitzer. I get it.

Ironically, the televised feud generated a publicity boost so generous for both programs that Mr. Stewart’s little sermon instantly become part of the very problem about which he was complaining: the Hollywoodization of political and ideological discourse.

That process was well under way in our culture. As I write, I am watching Mr. Stewart back on his own program interviewing former Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright about, among other worldly wonders, the high heels worn by Kim Jung Il to help the self-conscious North Korean strongman see eye-to-eye with visitors.

With VIP guest that also have included Sen. John Kerry, former President Clinton, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, Mr. Stewart’s program presents in its comedy format what “Crossfire” or ABC’s “Nightline” do in a more serious settings. The difference: Mr. Stewart’s show attracts more 18- to 34-year-old viewers than the network news does.

Yet, after Fox New Channel’s Bill O’Reilly repeatedly ridiculed Mr. Stewart’s audience as “stoned slackers” and “dopey kids” during an interview, a Comedy Central poll found that the show has more college graduates and $75,000 earners in their audience than Mr. O’Reilly’s does. There’s gold in info-tainment.

Nevertheless I appreciate what Mr. Stewart was complaining about. “Crossfire” and other argument shows, including some on which I have appeared, do not really present debate in the classic sense. Like the biting comedy bit about the “Argument Clinic” by the 1970s British crew Monty Python’s Flying Circus, the argument shows often promise a debate but present merely a dispute and hope audiences don’t mind the difference.

If it’s done cleverly enough, we don’t mind the difference. Audiences have conditioned the journalistic field to strike — and we in the media have conditioned them to expect — a happy balance between in-depth information and entertaining, audience-grabbing sensationalism.

“In a world ruled by the fear of being boring and anxiety about being amused at all costs, politics is bound to be unappealing, better kept out of prime time as much as possible,” Pierre Bourdieu, a leading dissident intellectual in France, wrote in 1996. “So, insofar as it does have to be addressed, this not very exciting and even depressing spectacle … has to be made interesting.” As a result, he continued, television in Europe as well as the United States is experiencing “a tendency to shunt aside serious commentators and investigative reporters in favor of the talk show host.”

Is that good for democracy? Our ability to rule ourselves is well-served when today’s information explosion in print, broadcast and on the Internet produces an informed electorate. But sometimes I wonder how well-informed we are when, for example, a mid-October USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll finds 42 percent of the public thinks Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 terror attacks, despite the Bush administration’s repeated denials of any such link.

If entertaining news-talk programs excite the appetites of young and old audiences to learn more about current affairs, such media perform an important public service. But if vast numbers of people think any single TV show provides all the news they need, democracy suffers.

Clarence Page is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide