Unethical John Stewart Does Not Deserve Adulation
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.










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.
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.