| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
How Influential Is Jon Stewart?
Crossposted at Right Minds
There are some notions and memes that are extremely widespread, but exist without a shred of supporting evidence. The greatness of John F. Kennedy’s presidency is one such meme; another is the idea that pork king Robert Byrd represents the “conscience of the Senate.” (Although given the corruption to be found in the Senate, maybe he is). And there is another such impression that is wholly absurd, and dismayingly ubiquitous—that Jon Stewart is a hard-hitting interviewer on television, speaking truth to power and covering stories no one else dare cover.
I’ll accept that Jon Stewart is a very funny person, though I’ve never found him very amusing. (In fairness, I haven’t watched much Stewart. And my sense of humor might differ from that of others). But that’s all he is. He’s not the oracle of the younger generation, and he isn’t Edward R. Murrow. He is only a comedian.
It is often claimed that Stewart controls the news consumption of America’s youth; that most of the under-thirty set get their news chiefly from Stewart’s Daily Show. Many do, and the Daily Show’s audience consists primarily of young people, but unless there are only about 1.6 million young people, the Daily Show only reaches a tiny proportion of them. Jon Stewart has done an impressive job of growing his audience (he’s tripled it since taking over in 1999), but it’s still small—Stewart’s reach is about as large as that of Greta Van Susteren’s.
But the size of one’s audience doesn’t always correspond to the amount of influence one has—after all, William Buckley didn’t reach many people directly through Firing Line and National Review, but he wielded a great deal of influence just the same. Is this the case with Stewart?
One of Stewart’s first triumphs was his feud with the CNN show Crossfire, and with Crossfire host Tucker Carlson. Stewart appeared on the show to promote his latest book—instead, he took the opportunity to criticize the show, saying that it reduced the news to talking points and engaged in “partisan hackery.” Three months later, Crossfire was cancelled.
Impressive, until you consider the circumstances surrounding the cancellation. Crossfire had just been reduced from an hour to a half hour, and moved from primetime to an afternoon slot. The show only averaged about 600,000 viewers an episode, which is a low figure for a channel like CNN. And if Stewart hoped to end cable news’ “partisan hackery,” he failed—cable news is as acrimonious as ever.
Stewart’s Crossfire feud may have been entertaining, and did show that Jon Stewart was a force to be reckoned with. But Stewart merely dealt a death blow to a dying show—he hardly forced Crossfire into cancellation by himself.
Stewart’s latest exploit was his feud with Jim Cramer, in the course of which he pointed out that Cramer’s stock predictions have frequently been wrong and accussed Cramer of being remiss in not warning of the stock collapse. I was a bit surprised that Stewart felt the need to point out the first part of his accusation—I had assumed that most people had long ago realized that listening to Jim Cramer was not a guaranteed path to wealth. And the idea that Cramer could have done anything to warn of or prevent the stock market collapse is just silly—Cramer gave stock tips, not detailed economic analysis’.
So Stewart embarrassed Cramer a bit by playing clips of some Cramer’s less impressive moments. But oddly, the rest of media jumped on this story like it was the modern version of the Frost/Nixon interviews. This was ridiculous for two reasons.
The first was that while Jim Cramer is well known, he’s not very influential—more people probably saw his cameo in Iron Man than watch his show in a year. Even if Cramer had seen the collapse coming, he couldn’t have done anything to slow it—he just doesn’t have the clout.
And the second reason, as noted above, is that even if Jim Cramer did have the influence to have done something about the financial crisis, he is the last person one would expect to play Jeremiah. Cramer’s show exists only because of Cramer’s ridiculous antics—were it not for them, Jim Cramer would be unknown. Stewart seems to have Jim Cramer confused with Alan Greenspan.
Jon Stewart is talented, and is not without influence. But his influence is very much exaggerated—he is not the conscience of the media, nor is he the voice of America’s youth. He is a comedian—and that’s all he wants to be.


Comments
Not very convincing, I'd say
Sure, he's not the "voice of the youth"... but only because there is no such voice. He certainly speaks as much for the young, politically-minded person as anyone else out there it seems.
He may be a comedian, but that doesn't mean he isn't able to skewer those who deserve it and show some light on a situation. Comedy can be a great way to make political points. Look at our rich history of political cartoons/satire.
The Cramer interview
The Cramer interview drew drew 2.3 million total viewers, and no one knows how many on-line.
In the run-in to the election the show was drawing 2.4 million viewers for some episodes.
And, news out this week which I guess you missed:
Daniel has obviously not watched the interview
in an uncensored format. If he had, he might have understood that the focus was on CNBC, not on Cramer. Cramer's sole job there was to convince us that CNBC was not a propaganda outlet for Wall Street, and in that he failed miserably.
Daniel COMPLETELY MISSES the "INVITATION ONLY, INVESTOR ONLY" footage Stewart had obtained, along with the skillful psychological manipulation that had Cramer whining like a five year old.
Daniel further misses the fact that this was a story brewing for two years, that had been shopped around multiple other networks ... AND ONLY THE DAILY SHOW TOOK THE BALL. Well, what with that writer's strike, the daily show is a lot wealthier now than most shmoos who invested in Wall Street. They've got a fulltime writer devoted to financial news... he reads Calculated Risk.
Daniel is dramatically underestimating Stewart's ambitions and desires. Judging by his training, he's not a mere comedian.
Next time I'm in NYC, I'd better go get those tickets to the Daily Show... I think they're going to lynch us if we go back and don't go... (they didn't seem particularly inclined to take "but you weren't even taping that week" last time...)
You should watch
"In fairness, I haven’t watched much Stewart."
Would you give much weight to the opinion of a 20-year-old on how great (or not) Ronald Reagan was? I wouldn't, precisely because they weren't there.
If you don't watch Stewart, then your judgement of his influence doesn't carry much weight.
I now go out of my way to watch Stewart, usually a day or two later on Hulu. He is funny, but he is not really a comedian as much as a media satirist. They are both having a real effect on the MSM, and it's possible because they do it from the relative safety of a comedy channel. I would actually assert that their influence is underrated since they have a large following on non-standard outlets
tag line for last night
"Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, joins Jon to discuss the White House’s latest strategies to combat the economic crisis."
Comedy, or news?
a bit of both. though I imagine getting to watch
Zbigniew Brzeziński in action was more fascinating. I tend to skip the interviews, unless they're with competent folks (not movie stars or directors).
last night was a perfect example
Of Stewart playing the "uneducated rube" in order to give his guest a comfort zone in which to discuss the topic at hand. The ruse soon becomes transparent by the Stewart's follow-up questions and in the direction he steers his guest -- all in the guise of being uninformed. It's a very Socratic approach and can sometimes cause people to condemn themselves with their own words.
And when Stewart starts pulling out 5-year-old quotes from politicians to contradict assertions they've just uttered, you're not sure if you're watching a comedy show or the modern version of Meet the Press.
Then, of course, you have the silly shows where Jon fawns all over a boyhood idol like Springsteen.
It sounds like Stewart has some pretty vociferous defenders...
...but I think they're wrong.
Nando--2.3 million, while impressive for Stewart, still is just a lower than average night for O'Reilly or Hannity. And that's for a super hyped episode of Stewart--his usual ratings are closer to 1.6 million. And your stat about what "nearly one third" of young Americans think only proves that they agree with the conventional wisdom.
RisingTide--your post was basically incoherant, but I'd just point out that Stewart has said many times that his show is a comedy show, and that he's not a journalist.
Ray--my opinion of Stewart's wit is irrelevent. If I watched him every night, it wouldn't change the fact that his audience is only average sized and that his most famous victories have come against some pretty big targets.
I don't have anything against Stewart--I just don't think that he's the new Tim Russert, and that he is massively overrated (as a newsman).
Because who cares
Because who cares what young people think or watch - of what importance are they to the future?
Daniel,
when someone runs a breaking news story, with insider access that diplays two years worth of planning... you want to call them a comedian?
I'll note that Stewart got this high rating (which, yes, is less than what Hannity gets -- not surprising, considering how many people watch at 8pm versus 11pm), while running a show that had a total of five jokes in it. Seriously, there were no laughs. This was not a humorist, this was someone discussing leverage and the difference between what Cramer did on Wall Street -- and subsequently disseminated to his Wall Street pals, and what he puts on Television.
His thingummy with Crossfire's overrated.
Stewart isn't terribly witty, which is the funny part. He couldn't pull off The Colbert Report if he tried. His skills lie in other realms...
If Stewart runs one story a year, that no one else will touch, and that shatters the aura of media invincibility... he deserves a pulitzer (or whatever you give to fantastic newsmen). This isn't to say that he runs one a year, or that he's a newsman -- someone who needs to make news each day.
mindshare on Stewart Vs Cramer
http://www.jewlicious.com/2009/03/stewart-vs-cramer/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/126829-stewart-vs-cramer-long-term-asset...
http://afrospear.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/stewart-vs-cramer/
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/03/13/stewart-vs-cramer/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/stewart-destroys-cnbc-cramer-call...
http://www.socalmom.net/travelblog/2009/03/jon-stewart-vs-cramer.html
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2009/03/stewart-vs-cramer
http://ketsugami.livejournal.com/686253.html
http://filkertom.livejournal.com/969651.html
http://adb-jaeger.livejournal.com/69706.html
Now, these aren't exactly all big blogs, it's true. But that's not the point. The point is how utterly disconnected they are. This is not an example of a social network relentlessly tossing around a talking point. These are totally unique, unrelated people tossing it up for their friends.
I don't do myspace, or I'd probably see the same thing about this show.
It was really that good, and like Ray says... who watches things on TV anymore?
I'm going to get back to watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report daily... and I don't own a TV. Many people my age don't.
"If I watched him every
"If I watched him every night, it wouldn't change the fact that his audience is only average sized"
It's not always how many are watching you, but who those people are. Because of his media satirist format, Stewart's show is watched particularly by the media -- people whom you watch and who decide where the media lens is focused each day. That is why CNBC initially pushed back so hard on them, why they were on the front page of USA Today, and why Cramer felt the need to personally defend himself despite Stewart's only "average sized" audience.
They have kind of a "good cop, bad cop" mojo going on right now. Stewart is the nice, approachable guy. Colbert is the one who skewers people mercilessly.