Unethical John Stewart Does Not Deserve Adulation

March 20th, 2009 By: Arvak | Tags:

It is tough for me to agree with Tucker Carlson about anything. At least he has ditched the idiotic bow tie affectation, but by and large his status as conservative pinup boy is not warranted by his usually trite and hackish commentary. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Carlson hits on part of the reason that John Stewart from the Daily Show is undeserving of the adulation heaped on him ever since his devious and devastating attack interview targeting the hapless Jim Cramer. Carlson’s main complaints focus on the obvious — Stewart’s bias against conservatives, cavalier relationship with truth and causality, and lack of accountability. These are fair as far as they go, but Carlson really needs to dig a little deeper to see the real problem with John Stewart’s pose as the paragon of common-man ethical virtue.

To be blunt, the problem is that John Stewart is grossly, blatantly, and egregiously unethical. His lack of ethics supersedes his bias, his carelessness with the truth, or his evasion of accountability. Stewart’s lack of ethics lies at the very core of the construction of his act. Simply put, Stewart lies repeatedly about who and what he is. When convenient to gain adulation from a rage-fueled extreme left that is desperate for new demons to hate in the post-Bush era, Stewart dons the garb of serious analyst calling public figures to account for their many failings. In short, he pretends to be a journalist and eagerly accepts the praise of sycophantic fans in the leftist blogosphere. But when caught in an exaggeration or misrepresentation, Stewart beats a hasty retreat from any claim to journalistic status, hiding behind the only-a-comedian gig that he premiered during the 2004 election cycle by waving away criticism with a nod towards a Comedy Central show preceding his that showcased crank-calling puppets.

In combination, these two poses amount to a slipperiness that gives Stewart a pass no matter what. When it is convenient to claim the authority of neutral journalist, he pretends to be that. But when the ethical bill of that pose comes due, he shamelessly switches back. His whole act is based on a double-edged deception. Everyone, it seems, is responsible for honesty and forthrightness except Saint John Stewart himself. Oh, and of course the blogosphere sycophants who worship him.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. c3
    March 20th, 2009 at 02:16
    Reply | Quote | #1

    first the disclaimer, I like Tucker Carlson. Maybe its because I liked the show he had on PBS (for one year). I do understand why some don’t like him. anyway, he (Carlson) can’t criticize Steward given their famous run-in. Having said that can we all not agree that:
    1) John Stewart is liberal and his liberal sensibilities affect his comedy.
    2) John Stewart still wants it both ways: to say serious things but to claim “comedy” when called on it
    3) John Stewart IS funny but he’s approaching Alan Alda/M*A*S*H territory when his sanctimony overwhelmes his comedy.
    4) John Stewart uses the f word to much for comedic effect.
    5) John Stewart’s audience has become syncophantic (is that a word)

    Maybe Mr. Stewart should read IowaHawk to get some comedic ideas for satirizing the left.

  2. Michael Merritt
    March 20th, 2009 at 03:19
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Yea, it’s a word, but I’m not sure it’s the one you want. Basically it means suck-up, but most of Stewart’s viewers are never going to meet the man to actually try and gain a favor from him.

    And I agree with you Jason. More on that in a follow-up post.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.