The NY Times has caused quite a bit of discussion in comparing Stewart to the likes of Edward R. Murrow and, for that matter, Walter Cronkite, for displaying the ability to have an immediate and far-ranging impact on the issues of the day.
Some say that’s crazy talk. Others think there’s something there.
I’m not sure if Murrow or Cronkite would be flattered by the comparison. I don’t think Murrow constantly used profanities on the air, and what would Cronkite think about Stewart being the most trusted man in America?
I dunno. I think Jon Stewart simply put before Americans the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent…
Oh my God. Jon Stewart is Thomas Jefferson.
PAD
• 
I think Jon does what the “real” media fails to do…take on the “elite” in our society and basically show what pompous fools they are. In other words, he has the CAJONES to say on TV that we say out loud to a limited non-tv audience or anonymously online. (Present Author excepted)
The comparison is not apt, but not because Stewart has not made a tremendous, laudable impact on the issues, but because it’s best to restrict comparisons, I think, to those who are in the same occupational category. Stewart is a satirist, and thank God we have people like him and Colbert to stand up to the talking heads and the mainstream media and criticize them for being so incompetent or corrupt. For that reason, we should compare him to other satirists and producers of satire, like Mark Twain, Voltaire, George Carlin, or William Gaines.
.
It’s not that I put Cronkite or Murrow on some type of pedestal above Stewart or anything, I just think it’s more accurate to keep the comparisons to those two to other journalists or anchorman.
.
If occupation is not to be regarded as a criterion, and the only is having a far-ranging impact on the issues of the day, then why bring up Cronkite and Murrow in particular? Osama bin Laden has had a far-ranging impact on our lives, but when you put it like that, it seems that it’s too broad a criterion.
.
Give Stewart his props, but do it correctly.
I have to agree with Luigi. Stewart’s business is satire of the media, not reporting news itself. Even when he does something like with the 9/11 responders, it’s generally activism on an issue we already knew about.
I’d compare Stewart and Colbert more to Swift and Pope. I wouldn’t be surprised if their more popular, elegant bits end up in American lit books a hundred years from now as examples of twenty-first century satire.
Around the time of Watergate, Mort Sahl, the Jon Stewart of his day (or is Stewart the Mort Sahl of his day?) recorded a comedy record where he discussed the then current administration and their problems. In summation he pointed out that when the country was being started, we had men like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others. Almost two hundred years later, we end up with Nixon and Agnew. His conclusion? Darwin was wrong.
Murrow/Cronkite to Stewart? Jefferson to Stewart? Might be further proof.
On the other hand, Sahl to Stewart? Maybe there’s some hope…..
Everyone says the cockroach will survive all of us because they adapt the best. Nixon and Agnew were the cockroaches of their generation.
But Nixon failed to adapt. Watergate was nothing new in the business of politics. LBJ had the FBI tap Goldwater’s phones, and the White House taping system that convinced people that Nixon was paranoid was installed by JFK. In fact, it was LBJ who told Nixon to record everything everyone said.
.
Hëll, for the famous debate with Kennedy, Nixon secluded himself and studied the issues while JFK literally got a bløwjøb from a høøkër and then worked on his suntan. However, because Nixon didn’t allow himself to be made up, people remembered him as looking unshaven and harried. The fact that people who listened on the radio thought Nixon won the debate didn’t matter, history remembers JFK as winning.
.
The point is that Nixon was horrible at adapting to the changing media. If you look at his domestic accomplishments, you’ll see only FDR had more achievements as a progressive. However, he’s reviled because he didn’t learn how to use the media to his advantage.
.
I believe the revulsion for Nixon is justified. I just think his immediate two predecessors deserve equal treatment.
I know it’s beside the point, but I don’t agree that history remembers JFK winning the debate at all, if for no other reason than that every account I’ve ever read of it (being four years old at the time, I don’t recall watching it myself, much less being able to determine who won) describes it exactly the way that you just did: That people who watched it on TV said JFK won while radio listeners believed Nixon gave the superior performance. What history remembers, if anything, is that it was the first time that television played a major part in determining the outcome of an election. That being telegenic would eventually become a major consideration for candidates, and that eventually style would wind up trumping substance, because if something didn’t play well on television, it would be jettisoned by politicians.
.
PAD
The idea that Nixon won according to radio listeners is more lore than fact. An interesting article in Slate discussed this. (http://www.slate.com/id/2268453/pagenum/all/#p2)
.
And where do you get your information that JFK was serviced and suntanned? Is that something you read from a credible source, or is that received knowledge?
I think Stewart has taken on the role of Murrow and Cronkite — but he did so unwillingly. Stewart has often said he’s not a serious journalist, and when he reports on the failings of the “real” news to cover items (notably with the 9/11 responders (incidentally, Denis Leary was on a talk show and gave Stewart credit for shaming the politicians into passing this bill)) it’s not with a sense of triumph that he beat them to it, but outrage that they’re not covering it first.
Of course, I’m sure Comedy Central is thrilled that their “news” show has become so insanely popular and gets them huge ratings. To me, it’s just a reminder that the major news networks seem to have no memory of what politicians said or no ability to show the video of what they said. (CNN is improving this with their “Keeping Them Honest” segment — but shouldn’t the news be keeping “them” honest as part of their job?)
“Someone ought to open up a window…”
“There’s too many flies.”
“Sit Down John!”
.
If Jon Stewart is the new Murrow or Cronkite then we should just retire the word “news” right now.
If Stewart is the new Murrow, then professional journalism in this country is truly dead.
And if you watched just ten minutes of any local news, it would confirm that.
Actually, ABC has an early morning “news” show, ABC News Now, that our engineer at work insists on watching. Between the wardrobe(loosened ties, open collars) and the people yelling to the talking heads from off camera and what they think passes for witty banter, every time I think to myself, “Somewhere, Cronkite weeps.”
Stewart’s not Murrow or Cronkite; instead, he’s Mencken.
Just replace the antisemitism(*) with, y’know … Semitism.
([*] … which, to Mencken’s credit, he grew beyond.)
I think of Stewart as a blunt, wry humorist — more of a modern-day Will Rogers than anything else.
if stewart is promoting common sense, wouldnt that make him thomas paine instead of thomas jefferson?
I have often wondered if Jon Stewart is the new George Carlin. A comedian who is right more often than they are funny. Someone who makes you think and laugh at the same time.
Hi all,
I think R. Maheras hit the nail on the head on this one. In the absence of real journalism (save from Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation. Sorry- I’m a fan.) Will Rogers does look like Edwin R Murrow. Maybe journalists will take a cue from Mr Stewart and just say what’s on their minds instead of regurgitating talking points of political insiders.
Captain Naraht