Orbital Matters

Saturn Smith

Saturn Smith

Saturn Smith
Birthday
April 06
Title
Ms.
Company
The Solar System
Bio
Everything posted here, and more random thoughts, are also posted at my web site: http://kepkanation.com.

Editor’s Pick
MARCH 11, 2009 2:00AM

Entertainment Isn't an Insult

Rate: 42 Flag

When did being entertaining become an insult?

Michael Steele was forced last week to apologize for calling Rush Limbaugh an entertainer, after Steele made that comment on an entertainment-news program.  Keith Olbermann, who regularly features Limbaugh as one of his "worst persons in the world," has long referred to him derogatorily as "Comedian Rush Limbaugh."  And now we have Jim Cramer defending himself against an attack from "The Daily Show" by reminding everyone that Jon Stewart is just a comedian.

Fine: Limbaugh probably does strive to entertain his audience, as do Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann -- otherwise they'd all just have news desks and straight-up reports with minimal graphics, and certainly no segments declaring people best or worst.  Jon Stewart has emphasized many, many times that the ultimate goal of "The Daily Show" is to entertain.  So it's certainly fair to call them entertainers.

What's not fair is using the term as an insult, or as a way of implying that what they're saying is less than true.  Making news and political commentary entertaining is not the same as lying.

Now, in Limbaugh's case, I certainly see many ways to argue that the man's information is poor, his research non-existent, his spin overwhelming, his attention to detail shoddy, and his world view terribly flawed.  None of that, however, relates directly to the presentation of his case.  Presentation -- whether through an informative discussion or a blast of angry ranting on the radio -- doesn't change the substance of the argument.  Just because they make their commentary fun doesn't make their commentary untrue.

Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh both make their money entertaining people by commenting on current events and politics.  To do this, they're both well-versed in what's happening in Washington and how things work there, and they both have staffs who are pretty good at tracking down specific instances to back up whatever case the boss wants to make that day.  People who attack either one as "just an entertainer" assume that their audience listens only to be entertained.  People who support either one assume that at least part of their audience listens in order to gain information.

Then there are those of us in the middle, who say, yes, they are entertainers, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong -- or at least it's not the reason they're wrong.  Let's take the most recent example.  Here's Stewart's Monday night piece about Cramer and CNBC:


Here's Jim Cramer on "The Today Show" this morning, via Salon's War Room:

"Oh, a comedian, a comedian? A comedian's attacking me?" a clearly exasperated Cramer yelled when anchor Meredith Vieira asked him about Stewart. "Wow! He runs a variety show."

Vieira then ran the "Daily Show" clip and asked Cramer if he made a mistake, to which he responded, "Did I make a mistake? OK, well, first of all, any time you've recommended a stock and it goes down, you've made a mistake. Here's a shocker: Almost every stock is down. Any stock you recommended is bad... This is a terrible market, which is why I told people to sell everything. But you think he's going to run that tape? No, 'cause he's got a comedy show."

Again, true, Jon Stewart does have a comedy show.  But that doesn't mean he's making things up.  In fact, if Stewart's only goal were to make people laugh, he could find much, much cheaper jokes than this.  For Stewart and staff to compile this clip-fest of Cramer takes time, and for Stewart to go on air and set up the clip also takes time.  Beyond that, it demands audience attention.  To attack Cramer is comedically expensive, because there's a fair amount of Stewart's usual audience who won't know who the guy is, and they all have to be let in on the joke just to get there.  It's far easier for Stewart to just write a quick, cheap piece making fun of, I don't know, did penguins do something funny yesterday?, without even trying to set up the joke with information; it's far cheaper to be solely an entertainer than to bridge the gap between information and comedy as Stewart does.

"The Daily Show" is allowed to make stuff up, but in this case (and many others), they haven't.  But it's more comfortable for someone like Jim Cramer to dismiss Stewart out of hand as an "entertainer," and therefore a liar, than to accept that his commentary is based on truth, and that his report is entertaining because the truth is often funnier than fiction.

Then again, maybe I'm having a hard time taking a dismissal of Jon Stewart's takedown as merely entertainment from a guy who seems to have made his career out of being the most outrageous thing on CNBC, which could be renamed the Circus National Broadcasting Channel without any danger of false advertising.

Have to wrap this up, now: "The Daily Show" is on.

wordpress statistics

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Jon Stewart has been my hall pass for years. Smart and funny do it for me every time.

My daughter (19) gets most if not all of her news from "The Daily Show" and "The Onion". Apparently, that quest for smart and funny runs in the family.

Great post as always.
I always sort things by who's telling the most truth. The rest is "a rose by any other name".

I guess entertainment got a bad name back when folks used to make a family outing to the Coliseum to laugh and clap as the Christians were thrown to the lions. Who knew Rush Bimbo would be its direct descendent...
Yeah!

If I were Jim Cramer, I’d be running scared, too. Didn’t Jon Stewart’s punishing visit to that horrible Tucker Carlson ‘Crossfire’ CNN thingus basically get the show cancelled?

Comedian or no, Jon Stewart seems to hit the pulse point 9 times out of 10.
I love everything I've read of yours, but as a comedian myself, this really resonated with me--thanks for standing up for us entertainers...sometimes comedians, by using comedy, actually get at deeper truths than than 'real' journalists...rated for, as Steven Colbert would call it, 'truthiness'...
I dunno.Entertaining is what they do - but what you do isn't necessarily what you are.

It is painful for liberals to admit, that we can't really say Jon Stewart is so much more than an entertainer, while dismissing Rush as same. It's either OK to be an entertainer who strives for relevance, or it's not. Ideology actually doesn't have much to do with it.
Yes, the audience does have to pay attention on the Daily Show.
Stewart makes the news funny and therefore attractive and that's
a good way for the younger set to get involved.
I just wish I could stand him. He seems so snide. I can't take
Cramer either. Can't take his loud and aggressive demeanor,
although I think he, like Stewart, are basically fine and decent
people beyond their tv personas.
News became entertainment some time ago when they took away the news budgets and made the news "shows" fight for ratings and account for every dime they spent getting it. PBS has the only really news programs.
Funny--I am on Michael Steele's email list (McPalin gave it to him) and he just called Al Franken a comedian.
They may gather facts but it's the way they stgring them together for entertainment that is all wrong. Liberal or conservative.
Cramer himself has admitted that he allowed his personal rapport with the CEO of Bear-Stearns color his judgement of the company. Now that his poor judgment has been publicized so effectively, he is suddenly defensive. Why the change in attitude? He should simply admit his error (just like politicians should do when caught with their pants down in proximity to blue cocktail dresses) and move on.

Trying to hide the truth or make excuses seldom works.
Stewart has said on more than one occasion that the news from which he (read the "Daily Show" writers) derives his material is so much better than what he could make up. Entertainment doesn't have to be fact-free. It has long been used to inform as well as make the audience pay for a ticket and applaud for the privilege.
The issue becomes one of balance and equity, Saturn. "Entertainers" are not expected to provide necessarily a balanced viewpoint. Neither do commentators for that matter, which is why Olbermann's ok on Countdown, but was horrific trying to act like an "anchor" during the conventions.

I watch Stewart regularly. I have seen him utter some things that were flat out wrong to the applause of his audience. Being right of center it can irk me from time to time, but I appreciate his wit.

Rush does similar things from the right, although I do not find him funny so I do not watch him. Franken and Garofalo do it from the left.

Cramer's biggest mistake was expecting "fair and balanced" treatment from a show that makes no bones about being a comedy show. Stewart has, indeed, defended himself from attacks with just such a palms up, shoulder shrugging defense. I believe it was a hissy fit with Tucker Carlson, he of the bow tie who has fallen off the map, where I recall Stewart doing this.

In short, it can't be both ways. If Stewart is going to diminish and duck criticisms of his work when journalistically called into question as being "just a comedy show," then it is also fair for those attacked to dismiss it as well as being "just a comedy show."

Cramer was foolish to go on. Only folks dumber are the congresscritters agreeing to be interviewed by Stephen Colbert. Those things are hilarious.
MisterComedy, my good Sir....."truthiness" means something that FEELS true in spite of its truth being questionable... ....I am guessing you meant otherwise?
I'll take smart and funny over disrespectful and impertinent any day ... even if the joke is a cheap shot ...

we've been mocking cramer since last night ...
"co-meeeeeeeee-dian" ...

great post Saturn!
i guess the audience needs to be informed to some degree to get the jokes or even understand the material. if you don't have "clue" a show like real time with bill mahr isn't going to be very funny. and you even hear hosts boast about how well informed their audiences are. what i think happens is the audience tends to watch shows that confirm their own beliefs. i guess it makes them feel good. with all the rush bashing i venture to say the majority of people that can't stand him probably never heard him or his show. the infotaniers kieth, rachel, bill, hannity, etc. skew the "real" news so much that yesterday when the market went up over 300 points the way rachel described it you would think it was the most horrible thing that could have happened. the hosts begin to become jokes of themselves. how many quirky rachel smirks until you want to throw up. will kieth ever end ...this is the 4356 day since former president bush announced mission accomplished. will bill ever get out of the no spin zone. will hannity ever stop saying the president is a socialist. these shows become so predictable that the show itself is the joke. i find rachel maddow particularly annoying. i'm a regular watcher of her show. the lead up for her show usually falls way short of the hype. she had a former i think marine from gitmo on that was going to talk about "torture". when the gentleman finished his story it seemed to me that what he described though may by some be considered harsh, it certainly wasn't the battery and sponges you thought you were going to hear. so back to the self fulfilling prophecy of these shows. i say watch something you may not agree with to gain a different perspective. read the "real" news then watch what the infotainers do to it. don't believe everything you hear or read. i always think back to the mccain town hall meeting where the elderly white woman stood up paused for a second or too and said...he's a terrorist(obama). i miss george carlin..."fuck lance armstrong, and his balls and his yellow jersey.”
A satirist's great weapon is the truth. A public figure can't win if s/he engages with someone as sharp as Stewart and his staff. That's the lesson that public figures forget time and again. It's the lesson Cramer should be learning now. Instead Cramer complains that Stewart took his Bear Stearns quote out of context. That just gave The Daily Show a reason to search for more damning clips of tape, which they found. Now the story has gone beyond The Daily Show's viewership.
Those who would use "comedian" as an epithet clearly have no idea how much more difficult it is to do successful comedy than it is to give out bad financial (or any other kind of) advice.
ktm is right. It is so hard to be funny! Notice that all the phony biographies are never hilarious but always tragedy. That's b/c it's easier to get people to cry than laugh. And in Rush's case, it' easier to get them angry.
I have always thought/taught that comedians are rhetoricians and social commentators-- they can say what others can't much like the fool could verbally attack the king. Stewart's work holds up to rhetorical analysis -- the other guy of whom you speak not so much ;0)
Cramer is a fool to think he and Stewart, who by Cramer's own admission, is in a different league, are bound by the same rules of conduct. Cramer has no chance. Stewart's sharper and funnier than he is. Cramer's already got an S sliced into his suit, what does he think he'll get on Thursday night. Set your DVR!

And, MJ Gott, why do you assume that Rush's critics are ignorant? You said you watch Rachel Maddow regularly, and yet you criticize her?
I find it distressing that so many kids get all their news and info from Carson and Colbert. The same problem exists with Limbaugh's listeners. A modest knowledge of current events is needed to be able to see when guys are crossing the line from fact-based commentary to fantasy. Even my favorites, Maher and Olberman, do it from time to time.
Molly the Elder caught me watching the Daily Show sometime back. She says, What's this? The news? (She must have wanted something, sucking up, you know....) I say, Well, kinda sorta. Then she sits down. Then she laughs. I think the "news" she gets from The Daily Show is as pertinent and reliable, if not moreso, than that on NBC or MSNBC or their ilk. Since News is not longer News, but SenSAtional ExPloiTAtion! - wtf, watch Jon.
Jon Stewart's genius is that he will always dismiss criticism by stating the simple fact that he is a comedian, though as several folks pointed out, his comedy can be enlightening and intelligent, as good satire is supposed to be. The only similarity I can see with people like Rush is that they try to be entertaining in their presentation. That's where the similarity ends. Rush does not claim to be a comedian but a legitimate political voice. For someone who claims to be a legitimate political voice, he is, in my opinion, hateful, narrow minded, misguided, and extremist. The funny thing is, the more people like Jim Cramer try to defensively brush off criticisms from people like Jon Stewart on the basis that they're comedians, the more credibility he gives them. Stewart definitely touched a few nerves.

The point of satire is to reveal the ridiculous and mock the absurd in society, and Stewart does this quite fairly and brilliantly. I don't think the Daily Show intends to represent one political view point over another as much as point out the absurdity of the nature of news media today. That's the irony isn't it, that "serious" political shows can be more absurd and comedic than a comedy show that tries to be funny and absurd. The Daily Show does poke fun at both left and right leaning media, though admittedly more often the right, but that does beg the question: is that indicative of how much more absurd the heavily right leaning media is?

With that said, if you rely only on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report for your news, then you're in trouble. I rely on them to point out some of the absurd things I read in the news, and to make me laugh. And they do a pretty fantastic job at both.

Side Note: Colbert's Doom Bunker spin-off of Glen Beck's War Room is one of the funniest bits he has ever done. It is only slightly more absurd than Beck's War Room.
Research is the key. The Daily Show excels at research. Obviously, given their track record, CNBC/Cramer fails utterly at research, which is why the former entertainment show is a far superior source for news than the latter.
I think a comedian is about to be elected to the U.S. Senate. My gosh, the shame.
Jon Stewart is the "cliff notes" of current events!

He imparts plenty of fact, broken down and well presented.

Maybe it's the pompous attitude put on by the so-called "serious journalists" that has called for some lightening up. This is in light of the fact that we've caught them cheating and failing to give us the facts that we decided we need to know over the past eight years.

Actually, it was the traveling jesters and entertainers who were essential in spreading news from place to place, wasn't it?
John Stewart is funny, I have always enjoyed watching him. But I myself, have met Rush, and as I have stated before I really don't care how anyone labels him, I still think, in my opinion, Rush is an idiot.Signed older/exasperated
@melinda meander,
hi melinda. i didn't say rush'e critics were ignorant. what i was saying was i think you get a fair amount of people, almost a mob mentality that agree or disagree depending on what they think is right. depending on what you watch you can reinforce that opinion even though in reality it may be totally false. i was using rachel maddow as an example of how the market going up can be twisted into something bad. i suppose i could have used bill o'reilly, or sean hannity, and i promise i will next time. it's funny when 98% of the people operating motor vehicles don't have any idea of who the vice president is its amazing how much what one watches influences what they believe(i made the 98% up it's probably higher).
Stewart is more informed than EVERY person you mention in this piece Saturn. And he would agree that is sad considering his show is pure satire. Well, not PURE satire as he uses the truth as comedy. That's the REALLY sad part. The truth has now become comical, not the imagination. Cramer blames Stewart when the video clearly shows him say every single thing about Bear Stearns that Stewart joked about. I'm with Jon on Cramer and Limbaugh too for that matter, "F**k You!"
RATED
The term entertainer is to minimize what they say. Even though Steward's job is to entertain, the Daily show often raises questions I wish the "real" news would.

All TV news is entertainment in some form or another. The graphics, side stories, celebs, and outrageous claims are all meant to draw in viewers, keep them interested and leave them fulfilled.

24 hour news appeals to our voyeur nature because most of what we learn or know has little impact on our lives. Just knowing something does not mean you can do anything about it or more important will do anything about it once we know.
Although both Stewart and Limbaugh can be called "entertainers", they are in completely different kinds of entertainment. Stewart makes fun of any idiocy, both on the left and the right (admittedly more on the right), using facts, intelligence and sharp wit. Limbaugh pushes the right wing spin on every piece of news. He slurs, repeats the talking points and changes his opinion if it suits him. He is mean and often insulting towards everything left of him. Some people like this kind of entertainment, when it conforms to their worldview. But it does not mean that in entertainment industry Jon equals Rush. Jon represents common sense, while Rush is pure propaganda.
Such a timely topic: Just this morning I was reading a review about the "debate" held in Manhattan last night between Bill Maher and Ann Coulter; the article noted that one of them was honest enough to refer to himself as an entertainer. I'll let you figure out which one it was...

PS - Jon Stewart has the balls to address the cable bloviators and the self-control to keep his ego in check; this already makes his commentary more trustworthy than Jim Cramer's could ever be...
"Limbaugh probably does strive to entertain his audience . . . "

I would say not really to entertain but to keep them in a continual state of anger and outrage, as do many other right-wing radio hosts. What he does is to keep his followers perpetually pissed-off at the "liberals." That's his whole shtick, his reason for existence, and he makes a good living doing that. Inasmuch as promoting hatred of liberals is entertaining, he's an entertainer, though I think it is more accurate to call him a demagogue.
I love Jon Stewart! You're right about the extensive evidence he and his staff compile which, to me, is treating the audience with respect.
MJ Gott, I agree that people do tend to gravitate towards things (what ever they may be) that reinforce their own beliefs. We're human, after all.

I just found it interesting that you said, "with all the rush bashing i venture to say the majority of people that can't stand him probably never heard him or his show." You then went on to say that while you disagree with Maddow and find her annoying, you are a regular watcher. Why would you assume that the Rush critics don't listen to his show or are not regular listeners?

And you didn't say 'ignorant', I did.. .that's correct. However, ignorant would properly describe a person without information garnered, in this case, from the experience of listening or watching.

And FYI- I disagree with your take on Rush haters too. I think some if not a lot of his listeners can't stand him, they just listen for the shock value. (Like a lot of Howard Stern listeners)
Victorians were fond of calling Mark Twain a 'humorist.' It wasn't until later that he was embraced as something much more significant. Great Daily Show clips. Thanks for posting!
saturn - another great post. you are almost single-handedly keeping up the political commentary here on OS. kudos!

two thoughts (echoing others):
1. Jon Stewart is funny and brilliant, IMHO. His satire works because it IS grounded in truth and relevance. I really can't comment on Rush Limbaugh b/c I don't listen to him, but I've never heard him called either brilliant or funny, even by his "supporters," so I'm not sure what the entertainment value is, other than the shock value and Joe the Plumber-ness of his ideas.

2. What is more concerning to me is the inverse of your argument. Not only the Jim Cramers of the world, but also the politicians (Cantor, Vitter, Blogoyevich, Schumer come to mind) who see their mission as to "entertain" the populace, sell a story, or craft an image rather than do their jobs. I know - all politicians need to have an image and POV, but there are some that seem totally dedicated to that end rather than thinking/learning/informing.
Entertainment? News? The difference is . . . ? I dunno.

In Ancient Greece the citizens were required to attend theatre so they could be informed. This included seeing tragedies and comedies.
I just wonder if the players on stage were amongst the most highly compensated individuals in their communities, as are all those named in this fine piece. Perhaps the way to make sense of all this is to require everyone who is providing the news in any fashion to disclose before each broadcast how much they are being paid and who is paying them.

That being said, Jon Stewart is a riot.
Rush Limbaugh is good at what he does, but I could have said the same thing about Hitler. When you are good at pandering to the fears of a people it does not make you good.
hi melinda,
perhaps i should have seperated the rush and rachel comments. i was just using rachel as a show that to me has an overt twist. i think the really interesting part of these shows is when you watch a live event like a presidential address or a debate.do you trust your own eyes and ears, or do you believe what some commentator just told you you saw. but you got me thinking...i either have to turn the tv off, or stick to tvland. andy griffith i can understand.
It's good news/bad news when (ersatz) politicos are afraid of comedians. We have only bad news when radio talk show hosts start to aspire to political leadership. And REALLY bad news when the public starts confusing one for another. Jon Stewart has never posed as anything but what he is: a gifted satirist who is able to laugh at himself as well (if not better than) (at) any one else.
Well done, as always.

It’s easy to understand the idea that something based solely on entertainment value would not necessarily be a valid source of “information”. But you point out very well that in some cases, some of these programs are NOT based SOLELY on entertainment value; there is a healthy mixture of entertainment and information.

The problem is that too many mainstream news media are sadly lacking in real information, and they plump up their presentation with “entertainment”. In this sense, I think Jon Stewart delivers a sort of double-whammy attack; he makes fun of his subjects such as Cramer, AND the mainstream media reporting, as parodist of their “entertainment”.

RATED
I found this blog to be fair and entertaining....even though I am a conservative I appreciate the humor.
CNBC got nailed, because they act like they know it all and they didn't see this train wreck coming. Now, the gang is hunkered down and fighting back against Stewart. Wow. Isn't is pathetic that their sh** is so weak that a comedian with a fake news program can dismember them in five minutes?
CNBC got nailed, because they act like they know it all and they didn't see this train wreck coming. Now, the gang is hunkered down and fighting back against Stewart. Wow. Isn't is pathetic that their sh** is so weak that a comedian with a fake news program can dismember them in five minutes?
As someone who lives in the same town as Cramer, I couldn't agree with you more. All that is missing from his so-called stock analysis show is a big red rubber nose.

In the name of full disclosure, you're not a flak for Jon Stewart are you? Just kidding--I wouldn't care if you were. Funny, funny, rated, rated.
Argh, I had nice responses all typed up and then I lost them. This is what I get for multi-tasking. Thanks, everyone, for the comments. I could have guessed I could tap into a pro-Stewart vein here!

Quickly, just to catch a few points that haven't already been hit by other wise commenters, the only goal that I think Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh share is one of increased audience numbers, and I think they both use the same tactic -- being entertaining, where entertainment is loosely defined enough to include both the anger that Limbaugh incites and the, let's face it, despair that I often feel after laughing at Stewart.

And nope, I promise, I'm not paid by Jon Stewart! Heh. That's one I've never been asked.
I think they all enjoy the added boost. It's like a cat fight with no claws. Everybody wins.