Apples, Oranges

The thought piece titled "The Joke's on You" argues that the popularity of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert among progressives "is not evidence of a world gone mad so much as an audience gone to lard morally, ignorant of the comic impulse’s more radical virtues." The author of the piece attempts to build his argument by citing many examples of the satirists cozying up to the establishment and passing on opportunities to challenge power.

The obvious rebuttal to this critique is that Stewart and Colbert simply aren't trying to be progressive, radical comedic performers like Bill Hicks. The author recognizes this objection:

Fans will find this assessment offensive. Stewart and Colbert, they will argue, are comedians, offering late-night entertainment in the vein of David Letterman or Jay Leno, but with a topical twist. To expect them to do anything more than make us laugh is unfair. Besides, Stewart and Colbert do play a vital civic role—they’re a dependable news source for their mostly young viewers, and de facto watchdogs against media hype and political hypocrisy.

But this rebuttal is never addressed. Instead, the author spends the next four pages offering examples of how Stewart and Colbert do nothing to effectively further progressivist causes.

Not addressing the rebuttal makes the whole argument moot. Such thought pieces, which are all the rage now, should be approached skeptically because often their premises, reasoning, and/or conclusions are weak.

Notes:

• The line "Fans will find this assessment offensive"--fandom has nothing to do with questioning the argument offered. But rhetorically the author makes a good move because it subtly casts those who disagree as lackey's for the famed satirists.