Things Jon Stewart is Wrong About

The problem with Rep. Steve Cohen's remarks that involved a comparison between the Republican line about health care reform being a "government takeover of health care" with the Nazi idea of the big lie was not that he was saying the Republicans were Nazis. That's because he didn't say that. It also wasn't that he invoked a comparison to the Nazis, because if people do things that are similar to Nazis or that require using the Hitler regime as an analogy then you need to use that analogy. The problem was that his phraseology was slightly awkward and accidentally placed the description of the Nazi idea of the big lie and the assertion that the "government takeover of health care" thing is a big lie next to each other in such a way that it looked like he was directly comparing the two. Yeah, it was unfortunate, but it was reasonably obvious that he didn't mean any offense by it.

Similarly, the criticism of the Worst Person in the World segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, made by Jon Stewart among, I gather, others, is just plain wrong. Yes, in a world with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Osama bin Laden and Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh (okay, that one's not in the same class, but I'm watching a Stephen Colbert segment about how hideous Limbaugh is; he's the kind of person who deserves the actual Worsts) in it, the idea that someone like Bill O'Reilly is the worst person in the world is ridiculous. So is the idea that the identity of the three worst persons in the world changes nightly. It's rather clear, I'd say, from watching the segment that the use of the words "worst person in the world" is entirely satirical. About half the time, the "worst person in the world," or the runners up, are people who just had a spectacular fail in the last news cycle, someone who made a dreadful gaffe or had a nasty scandal or bit of hypocrisy leak. The rest of the time it's usually someone of whom you can at least think, boy it's a shame that this person isn't the worst person in the world. People, like Limbaugh, who just display so much awfulness that you can actually scarcely believe that anyone could be that awful (and anyone who disputes it about Limbaugh, watch Stephen's segment about him, and then call the Golf Channel to complain about their promotion of him). Sometimes even people who are doing things that are actually killing large numbers of people in direct and quantifiable ways, like Jan Brewer rescinding medical coverage for people in need of live-saving transplants. Or torturing people. Or whatever. And he makes it very clear when he's being serious, as in "Yes, this person really is shockingly awful," and when he's being silly, as in "No, this is just a really hilarious FAIL."

As for Jon's implication, embedded in a question to his two guests who run a political satire show in Iran, that the routine use of the phrase "worst person in the world" drives a sort of criticism inflation, cheapening the value of such words so that, if America ever did encounter oppression on a scale similar to that of Iran, we wouldn't know what words to use for it. Well, as I see it there are two groups of people regarding Worsts: those who think Keith is being even half serious in using that phrase, who I believe unanimously condemn him for it and think that those words are inappropriate, and those who get that he's being satirical and that he also has a special way to let you know when he's really pissed off. When he's in a mood to make really serious criticisms, even beyond the level of having someone like Cheney be the WPitW when he actually deserves it, he uses a Special Comment. Also, the first thing I noticed Keith for was his coverage of electoral malfeasances in the 2004 election. And actual election-stealing, when there's actual evidence of it, is the kind of thing that begins to approach Iran-style oppression, isn't it? Now, perhaps Keith was wrong that Bush was stealing Ohio in '04, but given that he believed it, I think the proper thing to do was to try to get the story out there. And if Iran-style despotism really did come to this country in anything resembling full force, I think that Keith and most other commentators would find ways to express the fact that this was not cool. Maybe it wouldn't work to prevent that tyranny, but people making the occasional Nazi comparison isn't the crucial element; at least one famous tyrant came to power a little bit before they had Nazi comparisons, you know.

The worst thing that you can say about Worst Person in the World is that, because it's such a good/noticeable segment, a lot of people will hear of it without actually being people who watch the show, and will get the impression that Keith Olbermann goes around saying that commentators on Fox News are the worst person in the world. And because the name is formulated such that some people get that misimpression, they are going to change the segment, unfortunately in my opinion since it was bloody brilliant. But in any event, do people have an obligation to craft their satire in such a way that no one will misunderstand it? Jon Stewart frequently argues that his standard in terms of civility is much lower, because he's a comedian. If somebody decided to take him seriously, he'd come off looking pretty damn bad by the standard he seems to want to hold Keith Olbermann to. But Worsts is primarily a satirical segment. Should it be against the rules for a "serious news" guy like Keith to have a satirical segment? (If so, Oddball had better go first!) Why? He telegraphs pretty clearly to his viewers that he's going into satire mode. He also telegraphs bluntly when he's going into very, very serious mode. Is there something wrong with this? Jon Stewart, a nominal comedian, is often criticized by all and sundry for entering the terrain of the news. He disputes that this is a bad thing for him to do. Is it bad for a genuine serious newsman, who does a genuinely serious job of covering the news, to include a bit of levity and humor? Is he obliged to word that humor in a sufficiently non-humorous way that no one will accidentally take him seriously and think he's being over the top, which is, mind you, one of the chief elements of political satire? Does his use of satire for one small segment of his program make him "incivil"? And no, it's not the same as what someone like Limbaugh does, or what someone like Beck does. If someone who watches them wants to correct me, I'm open to being corrected, but my impression is that if anything Beck says is comedy then all of it must be, and he's some sort of elaborate Stephen Colbert who's managed not to let on that he's in character. I don't think that Glenn Beck has a special segment where he telegraphs that he's going to be relatively silly rather than serious in his approach to the news for the next two minutes. Maybe he does, and I just never see it; if so, I would appreciate being corrected. But I don't think I am wrong about this.

Anyway, that's my contribution to the "Jon Stewart is wrong about how both sides do it" argument.