- Monday
- Tuesday
- Ø
- Wednesday
- Ø
- Thursday
- Friday
All guests as listed on shows' web sites at time of posting. Changes in schedule may be reflected in updates.
† …since I listed Baba Booey both last week and again this week.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
This Week On The Shows: Nov. 15-19
All guests as listed on shows' web sites at time of posting. Changes in schedule may be reflected in updates.
† …since I listed Baba Booey both last week and again this week.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Stewart, Maddow, and the Search for Sanity
Was Rachel Maddow's interview with Jon Stewart a success? A friend sent me a message crying out: "He wasn't funny at all," and adding "I lost all of my respect for him."
That's a lie. He wasn't crying out about the lack of humor, just noting it. And he actually wrote "I wasn't sure whether I lost all of my respect for him right then, or started respecting him for the first time ever" in response to Stewart's comment regarding the D.C. rally: "In twelve years, i'd earned a moment to tell people who i was."
So can Stewart be successful even if he isn't funny? Of course he can. Was this his first chance to show himself? I don't think so. But let's not get into an argument about whether comedy is honest, or if all art is a lie. It's pretty clear that he meant that this was a chance to say something without irony.
Stewart and Maddow debated a bit on a more interesting question: are they both 'in the game' as Maddow believes, or is Stewart right when he says he's a spectator, just booing and cheering. I was critical of Stewart several years ago when he complained that Tucker Carlson wasn't living up to a righteous journalistic standard. Stewart excused himself by arguing that on Comedy Central he's flanked by puppets and clowns. The problem I had with that argument was that TV is a single arena, and ultimately neither Stewart nor Carlson can claim to be working in a freer or more ethically liable medium than the other.
Stewart has made a good argument that some programs and organizations misrepresent themselves: that they promise a standard of credibility and a good faith effort that they knowingly don't work towards. And I'll grant him that. He doesn't claim to be important or balanced. He admits his agendas and he warns people not to trust every fact he uses in his commentary.
In this case—his criticism of MSNBC and Fox as two opposing players in a game that he's only watching—I will disagree with his claim of spectator status. They all focus on political powers. All have an agenda. All use the media to push it. All comment on each other. All influence the discourse.
Here's where I agree with Stewart: he's much better at it than the others. All are vocal observers, but as a satirist he is admitting that his take on the issues is influenced by values that not everyone needs in order to be moral. He creates, of himself, a character, and puts himself on a moral level with those he mocks. There is no claim that he is right, only that he cares about his likes or dislikes.
It's telling that Olbermann responded to Stewart's rally mission by assuring his viewers that his efforts on MSNBC are immune to criticism because he is a moral voice.
Well of course he believes what he does is right. That's no argument against Stewart's claim that both channels resort to escalating accusations and inflammatory appeals to the need for fear and division.
Olbermann has further defended his tactics by saying that "sticking up for the powerless is not the moral equivalent of sticking up for the powerful." And of course, hating Fox news automatically means you're sticking up for the powerless. And liking Fox news automatically means you're a racist.
So basically, Stewarts accuses MSNBC of being divisive, and Olbermann responds 'we're not divisive. we're the good guys.'
Olbermann needs to admit that 'Come over to our side' is not an olive branch. And if you think it is, you're really just saying that if the other side doesn't shut up, the disagreement is all their fault.
Stewart's current campaign isn't against ideas, but methods. He's attacking blind spots. He's making the same claim that Ted Koppel makes when he calls the current news machine "an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts."
Stewart's success comes from his admission that he's flaunting opinions, and getting people to listen anyway.
That's a lie. He wasn't crying out about the lack of humor, just noting it. And he actually wrote "I wasn't sure whether I lost all of my respect for him right then, or started respecting him for the first time ever" in response to Stewart's comment regarding the D.C. rally: "In twelve years, i'd earned a moment to tell people who i was."
So can Stewart be successful even if he isn't funny? Of course he can. Was this his first chance to show himself? I don't think so. But let's not get into an argument about whether comedy is honest, or if all art is a lie. It's pretty clear that he meant that this was a chance to say something without irony.
Stewart and Maddow debated a bit on a more interesting question: are they both 'in the game' as Maddow believes, or is Stewart right when he says he's a spectator, just booing and cheering. I was critical of Stewart several years ago when he complained that Tucker Carlson wasn't living up to a righteous journalistic standard. Stewart excused himself by arguing that on Comedy Central he's flanked by puppets and clowns. The problem I had with that argument was that TV is a single arena, and ultimately neither Stewart nor Carlson can claim to be working in a freer or more ethically liable medium than the other.
Stewart has made a good argument that some programs and organizations misrepresent themselves: that they promise a standard of credibility and a good faith effort that they knowingly don't work towards. And I'll grant him that. He doesn't claim to be important or balanced. He admits his agendas and he warns people not to trust every fact he uses in his commentary.
In this case—his criticism of MSNBC and Fox as two opposing players in a game that he's only watching—I will disagree with his claim of spectator status. They all focus on political powers. All have an agenda. All use the media to push it. All comment on each other. All influence the discourse.
Here's where I agree with Stewart: he's much better at it than the others. All are vocal observers, but as a satirist he is admitting that his take on the issues is influenced by values that not everyone needs in order to be moral. He creates, of himself, a character, and puts himself on a moral level with those he mocks. There is no claim that he is right, only that he cares about his likes or dislikes.
It's telling that Olbermann responded to Stewart's rally mission by assuring his viewers that his efforts on MSNBC are immune to criticism because he is a moral voice.
All of us here at countdown, and a lot of progressives have one major well-defined problem with the rally to restore sanity and or fear…a false equivalence between what we do here, and what Fox news and the like do there.
Well of course he believes what he does is right. That's no argument against Stewart's claim that both channels resort to escalating accusations and inflammatory appeals to the need for fear and division.
Olbermann has further defended his tactics by saying that "sticking up for the powerless is not the moral equivalent of sticking up for the powerful." And of course, hating Fox news automatically means you're sticking up for the powerless. And liking Fox news automatically means you're a racist.
So basically, Stewarts accuses MSNBC of being divisive, and Olbermann responds 'we're not divisive. we're the good guys.'
Olbermann needs to admit that 'Come over to our side' is not an olive branch. And if you think it is, you're really just saying that if the other side doesn't shut up, the disagreement is all their fault.
Stewart's current campaign isn't against ideas, but methods. He's attacking blind spots. He's making the same claim that Ted Koppel makes when he calls the current news machine "an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts."
Stewart's success comes from his admission that he's flaunting opinions, and getting people to listen anyway.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
This Week On The Shows: Nov. 8-12
- Monday
- Tuesday
- Fallon: Rory Scovel
- Wednesday
- Thursday
- Friday
All guests as listed on shows' web sites at time of posting. Changes in schedule may be reflected in updates.
† It was a tough call deciding to categorize him as a comedian. Even harder than the decision to include Kimmel's guest for the same evening.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Funny (title borrowed from the author)
A friend who makes me laugh a lot, has told me that he could never be a performer. I think he could go into humor writing. But only if he learns not to get so bogged down with the morality of what he says.
So I watched a little video he made using the xtranormal video template service. And I sent him a rambling note about the power of language to connect and the human capacity to search for the other. He responded: "I was just trying to make a joke."
Yep. We humans are good at connecting.
Here's what struck me about this video. As soon as I started it, I was expecting it to follow the common template of all of these xtranormal videos. Two people talking. One of them sees things as they are. One of them is stuck in a single perspective. The joke comes from the repetition of that perspective no matter what the other person says.
This is the standard. Take a quick look at the first one to get a lot of attention, iPhone customer; then the spin-off starring Sarah Palin; and the Stand Up Comedy is NOT Pretty series; and from just last week, So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities. They're pretty funny. And there are some good lines in there. I think my favorite is "It's in Alaska, where there are mooses and bears."
The success and draw of the template is probably because of the robotic repetition working well with the jagged and robotic intonation. And the calm frustration, or even anger, of the other talking head is stifled by the monotone delivery, creating a nice tension. But it's time for the formula to be put aside. Let's see if we can make up some funny dialogue that doesn't layer the repetition of lines on top of the repetition of a premise.
Expecting him to follow along in that mold, I was surprised and pleased to see that Casey was breaking free from the flock. (As a professor of literature who's also a political conservative, he's getting used to being the spotted lamb.) Even if I inferred a little too much sincerity in Casey's submission, the lines are pretty funny. And I laughed even when I thought he was serious. Enjoy it.
So I watched a little video he made using the xtranormal video template service. And I sent him a rambling note about the power of language to connect and the human capacity to search for the other. He responded: "I was just trying to make a joke."
Yep. We humans are good at connecting.
Here's what struck me about this video. As soon as I started it, I was expecting it to follow the common template of all of these xtranormal videos. Two people talking. One of them sees things as they are. One of them is stuck in a single perspective. The joke comes from the repetition of that perspective no matter what the other person says.
A: I see things this way.
B: There are many other perspectives.
A: I don't care. I like seeing things this way.
B: You need to open your mind to other possibilities.
A: I don't want to. I like seeing things this way.
B: You're not even listening, are you?
A: I like seeing things this way.
This is the standard. Take a quick look at the first one to get a lot of attention, iPhone customer; then the spin-off starring Sarah Palin; and the Stand Up Comedy is NOT Pretty series; and from just last week, So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities. They're pretty funny. And there are some good lines in there. I think my favorite is "It's in Alaska, where there are mooses and bears."
The success and draw of the template is probably because of the robotic repetition working well with the jagged and robotic intonation. And the calm frustration, or even anger, of the other talking head is stifled by the monotone delivery, creating a nice tension. But it's time for the formula to be put aside. Let's see if we can make up some funny dialogue that doesn't layer the repetition of lines on top of the repetition of a premise.
Expecting him to follow along in that mold, I was surprised and pleased to see that Casey was breaking free from the flock. (As a professor of literature who's also a political conservative, he's getting used to being the spotted lamb.) Even if I inferred a little too much sincerity in Casey's submission, the lines are pretty funny. And I laughed even when I thought he was serious. Enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)