Breakfast with Jon Stewart, Part Three
Read Part One and Two of this story.
Okay, let's do this. As someone noted in the comments yesterday, three posts spread over three days to describe one breakfast is ridiculous. You can see why I write for a comedy blog and not a major newspaper. I haven't yet learned how to distill a story down to a bite-sized misrepresentation of reality to please an eager readership. But I'm working on it.
So, here's twenty or so of the top dead tree news people in the country gathered around a breakfast table asking a short scraggly comedian how they can do their jobs better and rise above the fray of discourse set by the cable news networks. You can argue that they were just doing their jobs, prodding him for statements, and writing down his quippiest quotes to pepper into their stories. But that's not what it looked like in the room.
Michael and I -- really just lucky to be there and in no position to balk -- had the very worst seats in the room; we were set up about seven feet behind Jon. These were, ironically, also the best seats in the room. Incapable of seeing Jon's reactions or expressions as he talked, we were forced, instead, to study the reactions and expressions of his guests. And they were, for the most part, adoring.
And there's nothing wrong with that. I adore Jon Stewart. A huge demographic of the country adores Jon Stewart. As one of the journalists pointed out, the candidates themselves adore Jon Stewart -- or at least the huge adoring demographic that he delivers -- admitting in the previously mentioned off-the-record dinner dates that Daily Show appearance factor, in no small way, into their campaign plans. And the reason that so many people adore Jon Stewart the decency, honesty and intelligence he projects. And though he's famously loathe to admit it, I think he knows this. And -- in that breakfast meeting at least -- he seemed to use that understanding as an opportunity to speak from a position of authority to the main authorities of journalism. This was an informal breakfast chat -- with no recording devices of any kind, except paper and pen (sorry to tell you) -- because it was never intended for public consumption. This, to me, seemed to be Jon Stewart's heartfelt beg to the information carriers to live up to their responsibilities. And, from my vantage point, those in attendance seemed comfortable with the room's dynamic. They seemed eager to glean from Stewart whatever the secrets to whatever magic it is that gives him the right to speak to them with such authority.
Which is not to say that they didn't push back when they felt their egos being stepped upon. After Jon pointed out the problem of dining off the record and fostering personal relationships with the politicians they need to report on (namely that a personal like or dislike of them of human beings, irrespective of their political actions, can't help but seep into their reporting), one of the journalists quipped something like, "But John McCain makes such great ribs." To which Jon responded with his chiding (and not trying to be funny) question, "Why do I take this more seriously than you?"
And this brings us to the most baffling -- and genuinely disturbing -- exchange of the morning.
I wish I had an exact quote for this, but I don't, so here's my best approximation: One of the guests asked, in all sincerity: I know you're not running for office and this isn't an off-the-record conversation, but what is the difference between us having off-the-record relationships with the candidates and sitting here talking with you this morning.
The room went quiet. Like I said, I couldn't see Jon's face, but the back of his head looked appalled and amazed. "Don't give me that stare!" the question-asker demanded jokingly.
After a few back-and-forths in which Jon tried to make the reporter understand the absurdity of his question, Jon pointed out that, for a journalist, an inability to see the difference between talking to Jon Stewart in a room full of other reporters taking notes and shooting the shit with a man who may be given the authority to deploy American troops into another country is dangerous in the extreme.
The guest, obviously embarrassed, tried to justify his question by pointing out that though Stewart doesn't have troops, he does have correspondents to deploy.
That's your Fourth Estate at work, America.
Shortly after that, the meeting was wrapped up. Everybody lingered to thank Jon for his time and talk to him one-on-one for a minute. Once the meeting was officially over, Jon seemed to shrink back into his nervous self and out of his position of authority, hugging himself for comfort as he exchanged politenesses with the journalists.
And then I came back to my hotel room and took three days writing an overly-long, poorly-structured and rambling account of what I witnessed. For the record -- despite what Governor Kaine thinks -- this blog is not associated with the Daily Show except that we both live under the Comedy Central umbrella. I am not representing Jon Stewart in any way, shape or form. I am just a fan of many years who got a really, really lucky break in scoring an invite.
If you're still reading this, thank you very much for your patience. I didn't intend to belabor this article as much as I did.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go write a post about whether or not Democrats fart louder than Republicans.
My job is awesome.
Ask
backflip
blinklist
BlogBookmark
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
sk*rt
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the 
RSS
it's pretty sorry that a comedian--despite his venerable acuity, attentiveness, and thoughtful observance--had to invite media pros to an informal gathering to implore them to do their fucking jobs. regardless, Jon Stewart has emerged as one of the sharpest social and political commentators, utilizing, god forbid, intutitiveness and pragmatism. why rid of assloads of cash for a journalism degree if you're not going to use what you paid for? there are countless better ways to get ripped off, like paying for sex.
oh, and Dennis, the length was fine because the event was interesting. however, reread this sentence, and then remind yourself to proofread--out loud--for grammar and flow:
"As one of the journalists pointed out, the candidates themselves adore Jon Stewart -- or at least the huge adoring demographic that he delivers -- admitting in the previously mentioned off-the-record dinner dates that Daily Show appearance factor, in no small way, into their campaign plans. And the reason that so many people adore Jon Stewart the decency, honesty and intelligence he projects."
I don't know if Jon Stewart was speaking to the journalists because of an authority he possesses, but he has insightful and innovative ideas (although it is sad that the idea of being an objective journalist is innovative these days). The fact is, he broadcasting on a channel that lets him say what he wants, yes that's right, even the F word...and I think he raises the point that out of all broadcasts out there, the news should be that way? the News is privately owned, and that really stops journalists from being completely objective, they have to kiss the asses of really corrupt, bad people on a regular basis so they will get good ratings. He mentioned fox news, and their agenda. This raises an interesting question in my mind about how CNN or MSNBC would be if they embraced an agenda not of liberalism, but of tough journalism...and if this makes them appear to have a liberal agenda to a few right wingers so be it.
dunno if I were Jon i would hit harder,,....i guess thats his charm and i have none
i would like to see what he says about this meeting in his own words off the record. As far as im concerned the press in toto has become a bunch of ass kissing syncophants with not even 2 bet cells between them certainly not any decent part of a brain, caring only about the paycheck and no concern for what they are supposed to do...ie incompetent ineffective and immoral to waste any talent they may have at one time had but lost to the political parasite that has eaten it. Not to downplay the idolatry to ratings....like the reality shows that have none! They havent even received compensation for it but they are too stupid to realize this. Reminds me of an old miniseries called V where the aliens schoomezed everyone into loving them and then ate them for lunch......really describes our politicians doesnt it? Very timely remake coming up considering it is an election year.
As much as I like the fact that Jon calls these folks out on these issues, I still don't think the key points ever get through.
Many in the media refer to Jon as a source of news, yet no one points out the distinction between fact based, independently verified news reporting and news analysis.
In my mind the failings of modern news reporting has to do with the collapse of editorial integrity. independent verified sources, fact checking - these have all but disappeared in modern American media.
In news analysis shallow contradiction substitutes for informed issue framing from authoritative sources. (Here Jon's assessment of Crossfire was spot on.) "Both sides of the issue" means that we get an expert on the top secret military planes developed at Area 51 and some screamer in a tin foil hat in an insult match on the existence of UFOs. (OK, sometimes it is an MSNBC panel of just tin foil hats at the Democratic convention.)
I hope Jon keeps up the good fight because good new reporting and good analysis is all but dead in America.
...on the other hand, it's all job security for Jon, and I like watching Jon.
The question of why a reporter should/should not be friendly with or suck up to a source is mooted by the "infotainment" that passes for news these days.
Ratings are more important than serving the public good, it seems.
-Carrie
P.S. Watch the News Hour on PBS if you want real (mostly) news, I do.
This was a great article, and it also frightened the crap out of me. When I think about the whole country (if not world) depending on the news media to uncover the truth about our candidates, and they don't see a problem with becoming buddies with the subjects of their investigations, it blows my mind. Any scientist or cop or any professional at all will tell you that soon as you are emotionally involved with the subject of an investigation, objectivity (or any semblance of it) goes out the window.
As Upton Sinclair said:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
Dennis, your job is indeed awesom, but you deserve it. This 3-parter was not only quite insightful but very enjoyable to read. I think I'm going to bookmark this blog now. :)
If even half of what little denny-in-the-rafters says is true, Jon has truly outdone himself. That breakfast scene reads like a Saturday Night Live skit, though, it's hard to say who is playing what part. Stewart oozes charm, wit and cunning and uses it shamelessly and effectively at will. Jon thinks in "Power Ranger" metaphors (due to young spawn). I think in more "Fairy Tale" lingo and this smacks of "The Emperor has No Clothes". Remember that one, where the King is buck-naked and no one has the gravitas to tell him?
I guess the press would have to represent the Emperor since they are the clueless ones (in this scenario) and no one wants to tell them. Or, at least Jon, Denny and unidentified-rafter-sidekick don't want to. Also, the member of the corps who asks Jon if he isn't doing his own version of "courting" them; perhaps not so different from the politicians. I believe this press member deserves, at least, an honorary figleaf. Jon calls this idea "crazy", which permanently cements my Twain/Stewart channeling theory.
There is a true level of genius to this, besides the obvious. Top brass press with no cameras or hidden recorders? Whether by design or defacto, just think about that for a moment. And, everbody, except Lynne Cheney, thinks Jon is on their side, telling their stories, understanding them.
What can I say? So far Jon's self-deprecation and sincere desire to ferret out the truth have kept his checks and balances where they should be. I doubt hubris will get the best of him. However; if, you doubted Jon's political power, read Denny's story, and a few others, and ;then doubt no more, Grasshopper.
This piece was absolutely worth three parts...screw anybody that thinks otherwise. It's a great story. It makes a great point about the failure of the modern media's fundamental resposibilities. That is an extremely important and relevant issue that does not get addressed enough. But of course, that is what Jon Stewart is brilliant at doing.
It was a great article. It completely conveyed what I have long suspected. Somehow journalists have become so insulated & disconnected from the rest of us, that when they meet someone "famous" who will speak to them as a normal citizen, it's a novelty. I'm glad Mr. Stewart can at least attempt to get through to them, no matter how bizarre it must seem to him. Hang in there, Jon. It's a weird job, but damn, you're in there, make 'em listen to you. You speak for all of us constantly amazed that things can still get dumber.