Jon Stewart's rhetorical situation

I like this quasi-profile of John Stewart because the author approaches his subject from various angles, posing  provocative questions and then offering answers, alternately recognizing strengths while attacking some well-argued weaknesses. The primary criticisms leveled at Stewart are that (1) he takes himself too seriously and (2) he unknowlingly plays the redeemer, criticizing the establishment from a safe place while making himself invulnerable to counter-criticism by repeatedly denying his power--this "redeemer" characterization of Stewart refers to America's "need for redeemers to rise out of its ranks". Its a great read but I argue that the author puts too much emphasis on Stewart the individual and not enough on the larger rhetorical situation.

I agree that his modesty borders on false, but when Stewart denies his power I interpret this as his assessment not so much of himself but of his rhetorical situation: His audience consists of young, self-imagined dissidents and slackers who ultimately don't mobilize well as a group. Stewart can't mobilize them the way Beck can appear to mobilize his audience--a block of voters already energized thanks to a dedicated media and powerful political machine. Despite mainstream media's claims to the contrary, the Tea Party is not a "state of mind" or unaffiliated multiplicity of citizenry; they are an easily identified demographic with shared values and an agenda. By comparison, Progressives can stand for almost anything--gay marriage, worker's rights, the environment, anti-globalization, minority achievement, tax policy, gun control, prison reform, entitlement improvements, education, peace, and so on--and getting them to the polls as individuals is challenging enough. Stewart's power lies solely in his popularity as a smart Liberal media critic, a face appearing not on reputable stages like CNN or even MSNBC, but on Comedy Central for a few minutes a night, four nights a week during part of the year. The matter is not that Stewart won't be a force for change; it's that he can't be.

The author implies that Stewart is a coward because he stands for nothing; he only satirizes while acting as the Liberal conscience. But then the piece ends with Stewart dreaming up a network based on media reform. Isn't that standing for something? (If it is true.) If Stewart does nothing more than The Daily Show the rest of his life, then No, he isn't politically useful to Progressives. He merely provides a venue for people who think popular news is a joke.

But as a media attraction (as opposed to a political force), Stewart does have power. So I don't follow the criticism that Stewart takes himself too seriously. So what if he does? The author's cited examples include his behavior during appearances on Charlie Rose, Rachel Maddow, or on various FOX programs. Look, when Stewart is given a serious platform such as a guest spot on Charlie Rose, he acts like a guest on Charlie Rose. He takes advantage and shows another other side of himself. As for switching between Stewart the TV personality and Stewart the man, entertainment has a long history of performers trying to reach through the wall separating performer from audience in an attempt to connect. When the run of a show ends, like when Conan had to leave his show or when Carson retired from his, the man opts for sincerity as sincerity is called for.

In the peripheral sits an interesting issue: What to make of Stephen Colbert? Right now, neither man has a cause or larger vision with which to rally voters. But among his other achievements, Colbert formed a super PAC and gave a scathing, high-profile performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner. In criticizing Stewart, is the author alternately congratulating Colbert? Is Colbert still funny?