What Happened to Jon Stewart? - A Retrospective

[@SkipIntroYT]

Hey all, if you'd like to hear the full hour long interviews with Professor Sophia McClennen and Steve Almond, consider supporting me on Patreon! I wouldn't be able to make long content like this without the support of my patrons Sophia McClennen: bit.ly/344kQcy Steve Almond: bit.ly/344DGQS

[@GandalfsBeard1]

As a Gen-Xer myself, can I join your war against Gen-X? Lol! ... As an older Gen-Xer, one of the "firstborn" if you will, and as a budding young Socialist, as a teenager I could see the problems with my generation brewing from an almost outsider position. The "problem" with Gen-X can be summed up with what we got in Family Ties, the TV show which was ostensibly a satire. The dominant political/economic current among Gen-Xers was essentially a conservative Reactionary force against Social Justice and Left Populism movements. There are some real Lefties and Progressives in my generation, but we're a minority. The rest tend to range from Far Right to Liberal Centrist. And it was ironically the Liberal leaning among us, like Matt and Trey, along with a few Liberal Boomers--like Bill Maher--which formed the foundation of what we ended up getting with the ostensible "Enlightened Centrism" of the Anti-SJW movement, which is frankly, pretty Far Right.

[@johnny196775]

ageist bigot, much?

[@rini6]

@@GandalfsBeard1 Interesting. I’m old gen x myself. And I get what you’re saying. I remember Michael J Fox’s character. He seemed so cool, even though I am also to the left of Jon. I think I’m becoming more progressive with age simply because I’m becoming more informed. But I’m likely an exception. Making generalizations about a generation is obviously not going to be a perfect paradigm but there are some truths there. And it’s not ageist.

[@wayofthewonderer]

sounda shite

[@wayofthewonderer]

@@johnny196775 you dont understand either of those words

[@writinguy]

I will say I kind of don't like that at the end that what John Oliver does now got lumped into what The Daily Show did in the past... because Oliver doesn't seem detached from the things he is presenting, but rather genuinely horrified by what he and his team discover, and as he tackles topics, a lot of them fit together and the systems which cause them become clearer. His show also often presents solutions that viewers can participate in (for instance, during the net neutrality debate). It feels like Last Week Tonight/Patriot Act etc, while being post-Daily Show projects also moved beyond the playbook of detached cynicism and have become that next step of passionate anger about the injustices of the world and that is a huge part of their success (and may be part of the reason that people have moved beyond Stewart too... because the comedians who got their platform on The Daily Show have moved beyond that model too).

[@albvii]

I think he might get into that in part 2. I think this was just about the first phase of political comedy.

[@whitketchum]

John Oliver plays his own part. Definitely smeared 3rd party candidates in the 2016 election and didn't get held accountable at all

[@FallOfTheLiving]

@@albvii i agree, but do not like the laying out of the problem with jon stewart at the start then. Do a retrospective and then at the end highlight the new project now evolved. As the edit stands now stewarts new show is thrown in with appethic historic daily show era stewart

[@wayofthewonderer]

john oliver is awful

[@tai9705]

i agree. but also people can evolve, i think even the still pretty centrist Colbert got more left after trump won. the way politics have gotten you really are forced to pick a side in a way that u could avoid doing during the stewart daily is show's heyday imo.

[@madcat9024]

During college (2017 at Penn State), a professor literally had us watch the crossfire episode to analyze rhetorical strategies being used, that moment in TV history *remains* iconic despite how little it ultimately accomplished in the long-run.

[@madcat9024]

@@kf8346 thank you for your unprompted feedback, I'm glad you had fun writing this out.

[@TheseusPro]

@@kf8346 you can figure it out critical thinking isn’t THAT hard

[@madcat9024]

@@kf8346 sure.

[@liztolley8488]

@@kf8346 if you can't figure out the context of "literally," then you shouldn't be watching this video

[@thomascheckie2394]

@@kf8346 sorry to be the one to break the bad news, but literally means both "actually happened in reality" and "only figuratively happened." If you are concerned with proper grammar you should already know this

[@davorianware1382]

Jon Stewart is surprisingly still super witty and possibly even deeper into political issues. I wish Colbert could have gone somewhere that didn't sanitize his comedy and personality. Pretty much all the other Daily Show Alumns found their calling.

[@evandonovan9239]

It seems from recent VA actions that his advocacy had an impact. They are changing the compensation for burn pit victims now. For Colbert, I feel like all the quirkiness is gone. Being anti-Trump for him was not about a witty or original take, just about dialing up the outrage

[@YTwoKay]

I think part of the problem with Colbert is that he's already done it all and been on top of the world. He's done some podcast appearances like on the Smartness Podcast where he talked about how The Late Show was the only promotion possible with how successful and beloved he had become-- therefore he felt like he had to take the job. I do wish that the world and the internet were different places but honestly, it feels like there's less room for the kind of satire and media coverage they used to give us. Hassan Minaj was doing a fine job of adapting to the video-essay / Tosh-Point-O style format, whereas guys like Jon Oliver are riding the old format into the ground (still love his work but yea).

[@onlyblinkonce2342]

Everything said in this video just went right above your head, huh

[@fluffymonster396]

Yeah, I thought they sanitized him, too. I miss old Colbert.

[@betweenthepanels9145]

He’s at best an above average lib that doesn’t acknowledge how bad capitalism is for the world.

[@Ian-ky5hf]

Jon was never perfect but he was one of the best voices on television at the time. I still think he has a lot to offer even if I don’t agree with him on everything and I am a socialist.

[@subversivelysurreal3645]

#MeTooed, again. (😳…🤣)

[@FELENATOR]

considering you are probably a literal socialist, Jon might be perfect then.

[@betweenthepanels9145]

@@FELENATOR Jon isn’t anti capitalist. He’s a lib.

[@FELENATOR]

@@betweenthepanels9145 I know, I agree with him.

[@undergrounddojokeyboardcag701]

@@betweenthepanels9145 No, he's a leftist.

[@Gaath.Gazmatum]

As an Occupier who dealt with the absolute media lashing firsthand in nearly every conversation of my early adulthood, only to watch our organizers imprisoned afterward when no one was looking, your coverage of how Stewart failed us feels like a vindication. We did something special, and we *were* specific about our demands. We just weren't centralized and people were easy to pick on when the overpowering message shown to the populace was "there are no demands" 1. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act 2. Overturn the Citizens United SCOTUS decision 3. Forgive student debt We're still the 99%

[@MegaManNetworkOfCourse]

Damn straight, brother

[@RobinHerzig]

Hell Yeah! and thank you, I was there + full of outrage as well (including the horrifying media portrayals of us Occupiers for demanding Economic Justice Today we're adding #MedicareForAll $15 Minimum Wage + a host of other solidarity movement support ie, Labor Unions, Taxing the Rich, reduced Military $pending, Abolishing ICE/paths to citizenship for undocumented people, Black Lives Matter, Defunding/demilitarizing police + of course, GND/climate emergency action + ending #FossilFuels… Overturning Citizens United now must include HR1, restoring/expanding the VRA gotta add #ReproRights now too unfortunately… sure I'm forgetting so many other redistributive policies #BillionairesShouldNotExist

[@Gaath.Gazmatum]

@@RobinHerzig It's been just over a decade now & I've noticed that the Occupiers are now broadening their scope after all this time educating ourselves. Many of us also recognize how our strategies failed & where they succeeded, and we're moving forward accordingly! Keep fighting the good fight!

[@Josh-ys4br]

john stewart just didn't fully agree with occupy. Noone in the world will agree with everything you do, stop taking that as a personal afront. He clearly agreed with most of your ideals and it's not his job to always have the same opinions as everyone

[@AWSVids]

​@@Gaath.Gazmatum I've been thinking a lot lately about the strategies of Occupy, in light of the "Freedom Convoy" in Ottawa. With Occupy, I agreed with the cause, so I was definitely more excusing of behaviour like taking over major parts of a major city and staying there for days/weeks on end in order to force a response to your demands. But when I'm not so much on board with the cause, like with the Freedom Convoy... then it certainly does just come off as a bunch of obnoxious, entitled brats who are doing more harm to their cause than good. Seeing that other side of it eleven years later has shifted my entire perspective on protests, especially political occupations. They certainly CAN be good, if rarely all that effective really.... the most effective and memorable ones tend to be either spontaneous in the moment because of some immediate injustice, or they make a good show but do not disrupt all that much. A lot of people seem to have the idea in their heads, as I've had before, that protests need to disrupt and cause some level of trouble in order to be effective. I think it's actually the opposite. The more damage a protest does, the more it hurts the cause. Whereas the more you can actually ATTRACT people to your cause by doing something that actually inspires and is memorable, WITHOUT causing any new pain... THAT'S when you can actually have an effect. I think of the Selma march, where, yeah... it lasted 5 days and blocked some roads and stuff. But it was mobile. It was a MARCH! They kept moving and grabbed new attention as they went. If they blocked a road, it wasn't too bad, because it was only temporary, before they moved on. That's a much smarter protest tactic. When you sit and occupy one place for days or weeks on end, then you just annoy/torture/harass the people who live in that area the entire time... you end up having to shit where you are... you look like stubborn children sitting in the aisle of a grocery store because you're having a tantrum, instead of looking like mature adults marching towards a new future. When I thought the "Freedom Convoy" was just gonna drive around for a weekend, I thought their cause was dumb, but I was like, "Alright, whatever. Have at it.". Then when it hit like day 3 or 4 of them actually occupying Ottawa to FORCE their demands like terrorists, it became a major fucking concern. Even people who more or less agreed with their cause started turning against them, and by the time the arrests started, people (even Defund the Police style leftists) were cheering on the police. It hurt their cause more than it helped. So now I think back to anybody who didn't agree with Occupy Wall Street's cause... or even agreed with it, but just had a sober fucking reaction to people occupying multiple city blocks for weeks to force their political demands... and I think they must have felt the same way I felt about the Freedom Convoy. So I honestly don't necessarily see Stewart and his team as having failed Occupy. I think their jabs were actually pretty warranted, as they're a lot of the same kind of jabs people like me and at least 60% of Canada felt about the Free-dumb Convoy. If your political protest involves shitting in the streets... it's probably just never gonna get that many people on your side, sorry to say.

[@disemvowel4846]

I was a teenager at the height of the Daily Show, and definitely remember thinking of Stewart as a leftist. It's a little jarring to realize how determined he was to stay in the centre lane when an earlier push for progressivism could have done so much good for the country and the world at that time.

[@Norsilca]

I was also a teenager, and he helped shepherd me on my journey from right to left. Even by the time I had solidly switched sides, I would still scoff at the "crazies" in extreme left protests and movements. If Stewart was further left I probably would've dismissed him from the start.

[@fisharepeopletoo9653]

Being so far to the left back then would have done nothing except prevent him from hosting his own show. What he did is about the best you could've hoped for.

[@matthewatwood207]

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

[@Norsilca]

@@matthewatwood207 Fun fanfic

[@matthewatwood207]

@@Norsilca I didn't write it, so...

[@notqunt1671]

Apple is the reason The Problem felt fucking bizzare, 2024 Daily Show Jon feels almost the same as he used to

[@SpaceHeggo]

Maybe, but also not everything someone’s makes will be great or even good, maybe he just couldn’t make it work. Ultimately we don’t know but I’m happy Jon Stewart is doing some great work right now.

[@KaiTenSatsuma]

The Podcast partnered with the show including the behind the scenes portions really filled in those gaps IMO

[@Tempo1337]

What happened to Jon is that he's always been a liberal. Nothing about him has really changed, but the rest of us have. He's (now) old guard liberal. Not a shocker. At least his heart is (mostly) in the right place.

[@matthewatwood207]

Is that why he championed the american victims of burn pits without talking about the war crimes that took place in them? Is that why he threw a rally that was just a party? Is that why he loves capitalism and hates Palestinians? Controled the opposition that corporations give platforms are.

[@sjbrooksy45]

Inter generation fighting is another distraction from the inter class fight we should be having. I have more in common with a poor Boomer or Gen-X'er than I do with a rich Millennial. Do people fight against their own self interest? Obviously, but that is less about their generation than the systems they grew up with. Though it may feel cathartic to point to older generations and say "all this bad stuff is on you", it does little to help. Better to say "look at all this bad stuff, help or get out of the way".

[@scarletkittyeyes]

boomers and older have most of the US wealth, look up finance statistics for 2021 and 2022

[@BlackXSunlight]

You have a point, but we can’t ignore how generational differences in how we communicate and even process information is a constant barrier to unite on key issues. Those born around or after 9/11 might scoff at the idea of abolishing ICE because it’s been around “forever” and seems like a Sisyphean task. Those older realize that Shrek came out before ICE was founded, and therefore don’t view the organization as invincible. Likewise, when I post a status about the wildflowers I saw on the way to work (bc I keep my public-facing accounts strategically neutral and harmless), and my aunt comments under my status with a paragraph-long personal message that can be viewed by my colleagues, this illustrates an ocean between our understandings of how digital spaces work, and how we can create personal boundaries in those spaces. And that’s not even getting into our different takes on propriety and optics, i.e. one generation says it’s rude to wear a hat inside a Denny’s, but apparently not rude to tell your waitress she’s “desecrated her body’ bc she has tattoos. Yes, we have to unite across generational divides to make a difference. The doing, however, feels impossible.

[@WelfareChrist]

Agreed. Identity politics are given the political attention and resources we should be giving to class politics. It’s like choosing to attend to a broken finger when there’s a knife sticking out of your chest.

[@scarletkittyeyes]

@@WelfareChrist class politics are determined by identity politics - that's how they seperate humans into classes. you can argue semantics but rich white supremicists will always use identity as tools of division and exploitation, so maybe consider caring about both?

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

Except statistically that is not true. When you look at voting statistics there is a big breakdown in age. It is explicitly due to boomers and Gen X'ers that we have had so many horrific conservative governments that have done nothing to address climate change or any of the issues Gens Y & Z have had to deal with. And while voter turnout due to apathy/pessimism is high among Millenials and Zoomers, at least 70% of us vote in line with more progressive policies and politicians that attempt more extreme change.

[@dwc1964]

In Jon's defense, you did miss a key thread in his coverage of the 2008 financial crisis, albeit from his familiar target, cable news: The role of financial cable news, chiefly CNBC, in _getting everything wrong_ both leading up to the collapse, and ongoing. His favorite target being Jim Cramer, and the climactic moment of that battle, in a clip on par with the _Crossfire_ battle with Tucker Carlson, *"Roll 212"* - look it up.

[@undergrounddojokeyboardcag701]

Well, its not just that they "got it wrong", it was that there was intent behind the scenes to ensure they got it wrong by entities who capitalized off the destruction of the American economy and would never be held accountable. All by paying off media talking heads all to say something that no responsible accountant or investor would ever say.

[@matthewatwood207]

In John Stewart's offense, the rally he threw was a party, the burn pits he championed were war crimes, and he's perfectly okay with the genocide of Palestinians. He's good at virtue-signalling, but he's not a good person.

[@morganqorishchi8181]

Except this very channel did a whole video on that and how little it accomplished. A moment of feeling good doesn't mean anything if nothing ultimately came of it.

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

@@morganqorishchi8181 I used to think like that (so maybe what I'm about to write is just me having become old and complacent). These days, I think at least such moments can have a unifying function. Sure, no revolution has ever coalesced out of tv, and that whole march on Washington thing that Stewart and Colbert did was cringe at best, but I don't believe that literally nothing came of it. Just because neoliberal capitalism always wins because the capitalist class controls all the levers of power doesn't mean that they weren't at least minimally slowed down. In this hopeless defense we're constantly fighting against the relentless onslaught of capitalism, even minimally slowing down the collapse has to count as a victory. Who knows what kind of policies the capitalists would have pushed through even earlier if it hadn't been for a tiny little bit of fear that resistance could form from groups of people like Stewart's audience. Consider that most of his Daily Show career happened before Occupy.

[@d48731]

Jon Stewart made me a liberal as a child, adulthood made me a leftist.

[@chinafuture6484]

Old age made me an extinctionist. I'm done with this crap.

[@bertram7222]

@@chinafuture6484 boo.

[@mike8595]

Jon Stewart made me a leftist. Reading an economics textbook made me a righty.

[@mycollegeshirt]

@@Jonathanking88 he read trickle down economics and was like yeah, ofcourse rich people making more money means they'll give more out. There is no way they'd use their own money to make more money instead. That would make them greedy And the rich would never be greedy.yeah econ101 nonsense.

[@FreyaEinde]

@@mycollegeshirt People who believe in trickle down economics have a piss kink and they need to address their needs instead of making their desires everybody else's problem. No freaking way anybody sincerely holds that as an ideology they really believe in.

[@jamesscully529]

Stewart's original comedy was closer to George Carlin's, but in Stewart's case, he quit before he got as bitter as Carlin got towards the end of his life. The Problem cuts back on the comedy, and is more serious, and maybe more of a political opinion show than his time on the Daily Show was. If anything, he has aligned more closely to a real news opinion show and less than what John Oliver is doing on Last Week Tonight.

[@AlwaysAmTired]

Okay I'm only 20 minutes into this video but my God. I was 17 when 911 happened and I watched The daily show all through college. The crossfire episode! It really was a different time and this has me feeling both nostalgic and frustrated at how things have just continuously gotten worse.

[@freegadflyathome]

Yeah I was 18. I think the Clinton era really got white liberals complacent. The 2000 election, 911 and people like Jon really did open a lot of folks eyes (especially young people). Then, Obama's presidency after inspiring me so much, 2008 financially crisis and 2016 election really shattered any hope of progress I had and I became pretty apathetic. 2020 had a similar effect on white liberals and me. I have no answers, but I know that it is my obligation to be an ally to the disenfranchised. So, we'll see. 🤷

[@undergrounddojokeyboardcag701]

I was in my first year of college when 911 happened and i was getting a BJ before class when it popped on the news. #NeverForget

[@undergrounddojokeyboardcag701]

@@freegadflyathome It didnt get liberals complacent, it took what was a party with many left wing ideals, dropped them and brought in a bunch of republican voters. This happened due to Clinton backstabbing every voter in his first election due to the fact that Dick Morris and Clinton came up with a political strategy called "triangulation", a better term was three-card monte. Look at one hand while the other does something else. With this strategy (by Morris, a republican campaign advisor) the democrats were sold to republican lobby groups and donors. Effectively creating a single party system.

[@Unquestionable]

Yeah same age group here and The Daily Show and Colbert Report were basically the only trusted news for me back then, not the only news source I followed of course but still very much part of my political shaping. While things were definitely coming off as bleak at the time I had no clue how absolutely demoralizing the future could become. Hell even a decade ago I had some measure of faith in the left wing politicians we had only to see them become GOP Lite at every given opportunity. Never going to give up the fight or hope for better but damn has it gotten harder since the old days when my outrage was only just getting warmed up.

[@matthewatwood207]

I don't think I'll forget the way I had to surpress a laugh at the people shocked that something could possibly happen on U.S. soil, and hold back tears for the people being targetted for having brown skin directly after. Then the outrage when I found out that Bush knew it was going to happen, that Biden shoved the wmd lie down everyone in congress' throats. I continued watching Stewart religiously for years, until the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear turned out to be a party, and I realized that was his whole shtick; give the compassionate a figurehead we think we can believe in, and then distract us.

[@AceOfSevens]

I think one thing that often gets left out of this discussion is the degree to which the right has adopted the Stewart aesthetic. See all their complaints about how the media is trying to divide us when reporting on a controversial issue, or the cries of hypocrisy every time a Democrat is seen without a mask, regardless of whether they were breaking any safety guidelines. The whole Stewart approach was not set up to deal with it when the right just became better liars.

[@ethanstump]

This right here. It was super easy to point out the obvious hypocrisy, the normal fair, the way that one thing was said while another was done, and even the right while taking itself seriously, didn't take itself seriously. Now, as libs pointed this stuff out, conservatives agreed and turned fascist, while libs realized that there was no "we'll push them left" and became socialists. Meanwhile, conservatives and libs still act as if their the people are taking seriously, as all of the statistics show otherwise.

[@SignificantNumberOfBeavers]

Left out, I see what you did there 😏

[@Salsmachev]

I'd be interested to see a parallel examination of The Onion. In the Trump era, most satire just wasn't funny anymore (especially as fake news and neonazis hiding behind "satire" became more common) but somehow The Onion managed to keep its head above the water while other established satire news outlets were floundering.

[@rustyjames6131]

I don't know. The Onion was definitely better in the pre-trump days. They used to have stories like "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex". Lots of conservatives fell for that. After 2016 they made a point to make the satire more obvious so they wouldn't get mistaken for fake news.

[@Salsmachev]

@@rustyjames6131 I guess what's interesting to me is that, by going over the top, they managed to keep being funny. And on some level, it makes me wonder if they were just contributing to the ever increasing absurdity of news-adjacent entertainment.

[@AJLikesCats]

@@rustyjames6131 I actually laughed out loud reading that headline, thanks for that!

[@Skittenmeow]

@@Salsmachev strangely I find the rise of "not the Onion" funnier, in that so many real headlines are indistinguishable from The Onion headlines we've reached an absurdist ideal.

[@Salsmachev]

@@Skittenmeow It is funny in a sort of horrifying way

[@angryangryalice]

Just wanna say that as someone who wrote my undergrad thesis on this exact topic and is now an editor of a satire/humor site (The Belladonna - check us out!), I think this is a phenomenal Part I. I stopped working in Democratic politics because of moderate mindsets like this (I'm a leftist), and I've been super frustrated by the nostalgia for Jon Stewart recently. But it's also a really great point that Stewart fostered our skepticism in these systems and we've moved past needing him; that seems spot on. The most radical leftists I know all used to idolize Stewart.

[@slawless9665]

Looking forward to part 2. One thing I didn't hear you mention: it may be not only a moral / ideological reason that Stewart (and Oliver and many others) choose the label of Comedian over the label of Journalist, but a legal reason as well. As I understand it, the laws around what a journalist can and can't say are stricter than the laws around what a comedian can and can't say in the US, but I could be mistaken. Obviously it didn't matter for Carlson's legal victory, so maybe the laws aren't as strict as I thought.

[@donaldbarber3829]

It's less a matter of statutory law and more how tort law has evolved. A journalist at least ostensibly presents facts, and if someone suing for libel can demonstrate that false information was presented with both the intention and the reasonable expectation that people would view it as likely truthful, you've just gone a long way towards establishing your case. Comedy and satire tends to rest on the presumption that what's presented is either not meant to be taken seriously, or at least not literally. That's not always an accurate perception, because there are people who claim to be comedians but are really just making opinionated statements with a snide or sarcastic tone, occasionally putting in a phrase like, "Oh, PLEASE!" substituting disdain for any skewing of viewpoint or comedic exaggeration. Theoretically someone could sue for libel if bald statements are made in lieu of anything genuinely comedic. But the fig leaf of "just kidding" is hard to overcome. Although you may be subject to endless vitriol on Twitter, that's nothing compared to losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

[@jannegrey]

If a journalist makes satire or parody well - they are going to be protected. It's just easier when you're officially comedian, because it's more "obvious" that this is satire or parody.

[@brmbkl]

Fox “journalists” don’t need a loophole: they offer “criticism” and opinions. They never state facts, they just call people dumb and lazy. They never even put words in people’s mouths, the put sentiments in people’s hearts. Just analyze how they talk: associating concepts by always accompanying adjectives or predicating harmless denominators with scathing slurs. It’s difficult sueing for slander about something like that. It’s childish wordplay, but insidious.

[@TheSoulHarvester]

Stewart was a real balm to me, in my teens/early 20s, in a cultural situation where cynicism towards politics was both the norm AND unspoken, everyone in my culture talks about "never trusting politicians" and authority figures, but in practice literally never questions established narratives & expectations. So The Daily Show, that highlighted the hypocrisy & empty performativity of "news" & politics was a very important for making me, personally, feel less insane. Within a few years, starting around Occupy & the Rally to Restore Sanity, I was starting to see the limitations of Stewart's approach to politics. It did rescue me from the black pit of propaganda I was languishing in, however.

[@munjatkumo1929]

44:12 To be fair, millenial- and zoomer-comedy (which currently is mostly shitposts on the internet) suffers of the same problem as Gen X-comedy: That being earnest and caring deeply about something is cringe. It's something we have inherited from gen X. Quite literally, since most millenials parents are gen x.

[@hey001hey]

This is for you : kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHuyZX6Bf9djjas&ab_channel=JrEg

[@TheMysteryDriver]

Aren't most millennials parents boomers and zoomers parents are gen x?

[@ledzepgirl92]

​@@TheMysteryDriver I am a late millennial ('92) with early gen X ('65 and ' 67) parents. I wouldn't be surprised if most millennials had late boomer or early gen X parents, with older millennials mostly having boomer parents.

[@danielmennel4565]

Gen X used not caring as a coping mechanism because compared to Boomers and Millennials as a generation Gen X has and will aways be outnumbered. Most Millennial's parents were Boomers. those of us born in the 70's were not old enough to have kids in the 80's or early 90's. Some Millennials have Gen X parents but not most.

[@hasbanshaikh4661]

The argument in this video was super weak. I’m amazed that so many people were so impressed with it. What happened to Jon Stewart? Nothing. He’s still super relevant. He believes in free speech? So do a lot of us on the left. I tried to be super open minded because I am aware that I’m a Stewart fanboy but I was frustrated at how much about Stewarts evolution over the years wasn’t mentioned. He literally took a step back because he didn’t wanna have the influence he did. He seemed like a human trying to figure it out over the years. His new show is great. He brings on young diverse voices from the left all the time and uses his platform to give them a voice.

[@heraclitusblacking1293]

The video was right to point out that Stewart sees Americans as fundamentally united and that our differences are basically manufactured by politicians and the media was very good. That is a profoundly centrist view, and a nationalist view as it essentializes some abstract essence of what it means to be an "American". The criticism of the video is not that "Stewart believes in free speech." The criticism is that Stewart naively believes that we can all get along if we just get into a room and have a nice chat. And that's the motivating force behind his entire project as a public figure. I enjoy Stewart too, and I enjoy a lot of the interviews he does on his new show. But the video's criticism is right on, and your response doesn't address the issues presented in the video.

[@JustinHall1468]

@@heraclitusblacking1293 You're wrong. Look at polling which shows OVERWHELMING popularity for many things conservatives hate, but they are crafted such that it doesn't say the name. We saw it with Obamacare which had considerably lower polling numbers amongst conservatives than the Affordable Care Act or ACA. Republicans have long run on a platform built on a few (very few) primarily social issues and used that to dictate economic policy that most people largely don't like. By elevating abortion, the second amendment and religion above all else, they managed to hoodwink poor people into voting for them. If we focused more on what we had in common and less and what we don't, more could be accomplished. Stewart has always said people tend to agree on a LOT more than they disagree on and that is 100% accurate and calling it a "centrist" point of view just shows that you want to be part of the problem, focusing entirely on where people differ politically, and ignoring the other 90% of issues.

[@Tapster2010]

For sure John is about being civil and having discussion I can tell this guy has not watched any of his new videos or pod cast He is far left about the economy He just refuses to belittle and dehumanize those that disagree He is not a centrist at all.

[@satyaartidicit1018]

@@Tapster2010 this, exactly. Maybe not far left on economy but I’m pretty sure Stewart is at least a social democrat. And things like universal healthcare have broad popularity among working people especially regardless of political affiliation.

[@cognittie930]

@@satyaartidicit1018 Sadly a part of theater is the idea that anyone who doesn't fall in line for the current drama is either a centrist or an agent of the enemy party. Like do I really need to have a brash opinion on Joe Rogan or Neil Young? Cause I guess whatever Jon Stewart said about Neil Young proved that he's a traitor, for some reason

[@nickf7313]

There are some fair criticism's here for sure. But Jon's new show actually addresses this a little more. He is talking about the real issues. The podcast he did with Stephanie Kelton might be the closest thing to real economic policy talk on a main stream source.

[@betweenthepanels9145]

Is Jon anti capitalist? If not he’s a worthless liberal.

[@JustinHall1468]

@@betweenthepanels9145 What a stupid statement. First of all, the economic left are called leftists, not liberals, so you aren't even using the right word. Second, being opposed to the economic system used by virtually every country in the world makes YOU the extremist. Socialism is not liberalism chief.

[@betweenthepanels9145]

@@JustinHall1468 how is capitalism working out for the world?

[@JustinHall1468]

@@betweenthepanels9145 Pretty damn well in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and many other countries. Turns out when you implement capitalism as intended things work out pretty well. When implement a crony capitalist corporate socialism state it doesn't work very well at all.

[@Spacemongerr]

@@JustinHall1468 I am from Norway, and even though we do better than other capitalist countries, there is a lot of exploitation by employers. For example 80% of hired workers on construction sites in the capital region (where 1/4 of the population lives) are on illegal contracts or without contracts. Dental care is private, so low income people may go years without affording dentistry. People still have no real democracy during 1/3 of their daily lives, at work. Most workers do have decent conditions, but it is not uncommon for low paid workers to be exploited, as they are often not unionised for various reasons (union membership nationally is 52%, compared to 10% in USA). The wealth is distributed quite unevely, the top 1% have 25% of the wealth and the top 10% have over 50% of the wealth and the divide has been increasing for many years. This is despite the significant elements of socialism like free healthcare, nearly all schooling is free and the government pays you to go to university, the disability pensions are relatively decent (though they are based on your previous income with a minimum payment) etc. All of these things have however during the last 25 years become steadily less generous or have introduced small fees. For example, hospital visits are still free because all hospitals are government hospitals with state doctors and workers, but general practicioners are now private, and visits and non-permanent prescription meds are now only paid by the government after you have spent $300/year. My point is: Just because Norway isn't doing as poorly as other capitalist countries, doesn't mean we can't progress beyond capitalism, to a better system.

[@gorimbaud]

I know you made a joke about Community fans (I'm no Harmonite, I just like Community) coming at you in the comments, but I just want to say that deconstructing GenX cynicism and portraying it as incredibly dumb was the whole point of Jeff Winger's character. I don't think it's an accident that he's played by the Talk Soup guy.

[@galactic85]

True but Britta, the most passionate and character character slowly becomes the air head of the group and is treated as being very dumb. Sure you could view her character as mocking middle class white feminists who don't know how to be allies but there is never really a character who illustrates the value of trying to solve problems. Maybe that's too much to expect from a half hour TV sitcom but as Britta because just as much of a satirical character as jeff overtime its hard not to view the show through the lens of "both sides stupid." I will say this though, the whole point of Jeff's character arc in community is Jeff learn to start caring for others and standing up for what is right and owning up to his failings so I do think Harmon recognizes the failings of the Gen X attitude and why its important to move beyond,

[@MattEldritchHorror]

@royaltimes I'm not sure that really worked out as intended; Its kind of like the similar problems with Harmon's Rick and Morty series, the intended message gets completely drowned out by the show accidentally endorsing the toxic behaviours.

[@gorimbaud]

@@MattEldritchHorror I couldn't really compare it to Rick and Morty, since I bounced off that show, but I don't think it really does endorse it. Like, Jeff's cynicism causing problems and alienating his friends, and frequently masking insecurity. I wouldn't say the show doesn't accidentally endorse _other_ toxic behaviors, but I'm talking specifically about the cynicism.

[@Totally_Glitched]

​@@MattEldritchHorror Reminds me of Rorschach from Watchmen. Alan Moore was quite disgusted by fans' positive reaction to the character, considering he's a bigoted asshole. There's a long history of people taking the wrong message away from certain characters. The Joker, Deadpool, Tyler Durden, Patrick Bateman, Bojack Horseman, and yes, Rick Sanchez, are all examples of this. It's gotten to the point where it's considered a red flag if someone says any of these guys are their favourite character, because of just how toxic the fanbases are.

[@Mr.Monacle]

​​@@Totally_GlitchedTo be fair, Rick textually wins every encounter until like Season 5, when he starts addressing his own failings as a person. Like, think about that, as soon as Rick starts genuinely trying to be a better person, Rick starts getting the shit kicked out of him on a regular basis, think of what that demonstrates. Rick and Morty (and Dan Harmon's projects in general) have a really bad habit of having their intended message be undermined by the text of the show itself. In Rick and Morty, the intended message is that nothing matters in the scheme of things but that lets you create your own meaning, allowing you to do what makes you happy (i.e. existentialism), but the proponent of that worldview is Morty, who is such a punching bag for Rick (who espouses pure nihilism) that it is literally text that Mortys are cloned en-masse because Ricks go through them with such regularity. Like, it is really difficult to overstate how much the text undermined the intended subtext of the show.

[@Guimhj]

"I wonder what the commerce secretary thinks about capitalism." That got me 😅

[@TheRationalPi]

I feel like this analysis projects our current cultural climate onto the past. The 90's was certainly the peak for disaffection-as-cultural-currency, but the 2000's were still coming off of that high with cynical detachment as the default mode. Conversely, the break-down of political discourse was still accelerating, and the implication that either side of the aisle might have a more valid claim to the moral high ground would still brand you as irredeemably partisan. Conservative talk radio and Fox News hadn't fully split our information ecosystem in two just yet. When you contrast the Daily Show with modern liberal activism, it appears cynical and centrist, but when you compare it against the discourse of the time it has a very different impression.

[@th3on3thatb3atu]

Couldn’t agree more. Revisionist history at its finest. Eventually we will have no one to look up to.

[@scarletkittyeyes]

I support this well-spoken critique! This is a great example of appropriate and constructive discourse.

[@akshayde]

I just realised that this is like a band that isn't the same band after 20 years and people are upset that the band's sound has changed and its not that 'edgy' anymore

[@MrShanester117]

Spot on!

[@Sebisajiminstan]

Exactly!! Plus, the political and media context are completely different from 20 years ago, and just, in general, people tend to change in 20 years

[@martinstent5339]

Frank Zappa used to satirize the conservative middle-classes and also make fun of the hippies. He just didn't like things which were hypocritical in any way. The same with Jon Steward.

[@alancastillo7932]

One of my favorites channel doing an hour video is a great and necessary surprise in these trying times. Thank you.

[@vicariousfool]

so Jon Stewart part of the Progressive pipeline.....not quite Progressive himself, but a stepping stone along the way

[@joemamr710]

He is what progressive used to mean before it went off the rails and obsessed with issues that the majority of America doesn’t care about or want. In 2008 Jon stewart was spitting facts that literally everybody, left and right, who was a regular person agreed with. He was down with healthcare reform and things that almost everybody was and still is supportive of. But now there is a vocal minority who are very angry that he isn’t in favor of extremely radical ideas that most people don’t support.

[@martinperon4576]

Not only has a part of Stewart's audience grown more radical, I'd say so has John Oliver!

[@MrBazBake]

John Oliver already came from a leftist comedy background with Andy Zaitzman doing a lot of stuff like Last Week Tonight, and they started a lefty podcast called The Bugle after Oliver joined the Daily Show. Oliver co-hosted even during his time replacing Jon Stewart while he was on hiatus and only stopped when he got Last Week Tonight. (Oliver also produced Wyatt Cenac's Problem Areas.)

[@maximilianomadrigal6661]

John Oliver is as milk toast neo liberal as you can get, the closet he got to radical or "leftist" was during the blm protests where he started listing off all his past segments but didn't connect to capitalism and our current state which holds up, it's ok to talk about systems racism but dont name what system it is, racism is caused by assholes, so get rid of assholes and youve solved racisms, how else do you get a entire segment critical on Venezuela where every source used was funded by oil companies, who might have a motive in painting them in a bad light regardless of the actual nuance of wanting independence from American hegemony.

[@FreyaEinde]

@@maximilianomadrigal6661 Come now sir, you can't connect racism to economic imperatives any more than you can say the Holocaust was about the construction of a group of people as scape goat as a means of stealing loads of economic wealth...I mean it would be accurate and get at the heart of the problem but I mean...it's not as polite as saying we should just all love each other by doing next to nothing to address the roots of isms to begin with. It's important right now to blame our current troubles on the Chinese wanting to get the oil we also are decimating countries to get a hold of. Ugggh

[@knate44]

@@maximilianomadrigal6661 I think he is still a progressive, but he could definitely still be more progressive. A good example of this was the first few policing pieces he did he was very much like "oh body cams and training", and in more than recent years he has been more like "ok maybe we could defund them" but hasn't really gotten to the point where he can say "hey wait maybe this whole system is bad and done and not even worthy of reform". I think in another decade we will see an even further push for mainstream socialist ideas, but as we are now there is no way in hell the corporate oligarchy are gonna greenlight something like that these days. It also doesn't say whither or not this is his personal belief or if he is toning down (or up for that matter) to be more appealing to a certain audience. I also think it would be more accurate to call him a social democrat, which is guess could be described as "liberal" or "centrist", but there is still a difference between the Nordic model and laissez faire capitalism. He's not perfect by any means, but if tucker carleson is a gateway for centrist or right wing normies to go full fash, Oliver could certainly viewed by the left in a similar but opposite way: to expose people to some of ideas of liberation.

[@testahom4690]

Wow - that's is dot on. The audience has become way too polarized and radical, maybe tough for Jim to find a common ground

[@RobertJRoman]

The point of this essay seems to be that, because Stewart's ideology took reasonableness as a virtue, he was never really the progressive champion that his audience saw him as. I don't yet fully agree with that premise, but I do look forward to seeing you finish making that case in part 2. It's only fair and reasonable for me to do so...

[@RUSEOfficial]

He's just as progressive as he's always been. It's just that the political lines in the sand have shifted so far in the last decade. No one is what they claim to be. If you were to adhere to the principles of the Left in the late 90s, you would be categorized as a libertarian or republican today.

[@joeljs9778]

I encourage you to make your point before and after part 2 drops. Might be interesting to see the difference. Didn't make my mind up fully yet but I think Stewart is hold to a significantly higher standard than his colleagues.

[@Allison_Hart]

i agree with you, but at the same time you do have figures like Bill Maher who are legitimately praising themselves for "being more levelheaded than the more radical left and that's why Fox News actually loves me. wild huh?" like, intentionally misrepresenting others' views in order to make yourself look more rational in comparison. doing that obviously exacerbates the optics issues the left has. as long as someone is acting in good faith about it though (NOT Bill Maher) then i'm cool with it.

[@0mildoo]

The reasonableness Jon clung to was an aesthetic, best showcased by the difference in coverage between the tea party and occupy. I think the shortcomings of that are pretty indisputable. It’s one of the larger limitations liberals today have.

[@galactic85]

It's not that he upheld "reasonableness" as a virtue. It's that he continuously pulls the "can't we all just get along!" Card. The truth is political decisions harm people. Right now there is a huge right wing effort pushing for legalized discrimination of Trans people. Those policies are causing real harm to people. In that case there is nothing to be "reasoned" with. There is just culture war bullshit that is being used to harm people and pray upon individual prejudice. The "let's find the middle ground" approach works better with something like say negotiating new tax laws. But that's not all politics is and what it has become. Additionally while steeart is critical of the media ecosystem he is not critical of the power structures that govern America. He operates from the assumption that the status quo works, and its just a matter of bad actors being put in charge. Being the guy who goes "hey...can't we all agree that we should take better care of our veterans" isn't a solution to fixing America's toxic political climate.

[@linseyspolidoro5122]

I came to the conclusion that he didn’t change, _we did_ when I saw that clip of him being incredibly creepy to Pamela Anderson. Sensibilities change, plus we have more left leaning content so we don’t have to deal with the cable exec approved scraps anymore lol.

[@JoshStobart]

I understand your perspective in this video but I fundamentally don't agree with most of what you said. You ask why Jon supports/doesn't support certain political movements or groups but the through line that always holds true with him is that he calls out disingenuous behaviour. In fact he's still doing it (see recent videos on recycling). He doesn't want either side to be right, he wants them to be honest so we can decide what's right for ourselves. When there's a lack of honesty, he pulls up with a microphone to broadcast that dishonesty in a way that people can understand. When he went after Crossfire it was to call out their dishonesty, not to disagree with them politically. He even says so several times during the show: "You're not honest" and "When you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to the fire, i think that's disingenuous". He then talks about going to "spin alley" which is a huge problem for him as it took honest facts and processed them into dishonest rhetoric. So, why did he go after the Occupy movement? Because most people there didn't know WHY they were there. It was funny because he saw the pointlessness of it before anyone else could. It would never succeed as long as people didn't know what they wanted to achieve by it. He supported the movement initially because he agreed with the sentiment but then he turned on them when their message turned out to be dishonest in the sense that the participants were lying to themselves in believing that their actions would make a change. So he made fun of them for lying to themselves. Why did he give the tea party an opportunity to speak and have a serious conversation? Because they were open to having somewhat honest discussions on what they wanted to achieve and he could call out their dishonesty when there was any because it was an interview. And in the end, knowing the truth of something is FAR MORE important than knowing the sentiment of something. That is why it's called speaking TRUTH to power. To erase the dishonesty. Peel back the layers of lies for a quick peek at what's underneath. Jon was never a 'liberal' icon. Forget that notion. The fact is, republicans have a habit of lying and so he calls them out more often than the democrats but he is NOT on any side of the debate and goes after dishonesty in a way that is interesting, funny and informative. So... is he still relevant? Yes. There is just too much dishonesty to go after now and he is curating the topics he's willing to go after based on his own preferences instead of basing it on the daily news cycle. He's not doing The Daily Show anymore in the same way that Colbert isn't doing The Colbert Report anymore. Their characters from those shows have been retired.

[@sallyjrwjrw6766]

Such an insightful comment.

[@historynerd37]

I think it's a good point about the attitude of Gen X towards caring. I think for many of them it also extends towards action, which is funny, given how Stewart has gone on to activism since leaving the show. Even my Gen X parents believe that caring too much isn't good and that acting on those beliefs, even tame protests that are broadly popular, is extreme to the point of being cringey (though they wouldn't use that word). Maybe it's because they came up in a time of the successes of American capital and felt able to comfortably ignore political and imperialist corruption, and they have that leftover faith that really things aren't bad enough to bother acting on. Or now, that things are too bad for acting on them to make any difference. It's a difficult gap to bridge, on the rare occasion I feel like trying with my parents anymore.

[@TheSoulHarvester]

I think the very insincere earnestness of "hippie" boomer subcultures, & the relative failure of protest to prevent the Vietnam war, both had a big defining influence on Gen X attitudes towards the possibility of systemic change.

[@vinegarpisser2992]

Perhaps different people just view things differently.

[@planescaped]

Man, those clips of old Daily Show episodes hit me in the nostalgia feels so hard. When Jon Stewart was on the Daily Show, it was without a doubt the best actual news show on tv despite being a satirical and comedic show .And that's not my protest vote. In fact, just about everyone I knew legit thought he was a great news presenter.

[@jenkinsjrjenkins]

I'm so frickin glad I found your channel through your Copaganda series, this essay is golden ✨

[@camelopardalis84]

"So there's a Copaganda series on this channel I just found out about? I'll subscribe then." - My thought process.

[@shifty220]

Same, same!

[@Alan_Duval]

Hey there, GenXer and Jon Stewart fan here 😁 Very much enjoyed your presentation and looking forward to part two. I've been enjoying The Problem with Jon Stewart, too, not least because he listened to the feedback from his audience and got someone on to discuss why just sitting down and having a rational discussion with "the opposition" very often just doesn't work[1]. I think, as he says at the outset of the cited video, he believes in engagement with the other side, and this fails to recognise three very important things: 1) There's a big difference between a voter whose beliefs have been parasitized by politicians and pundits, and the beliefs of those politicians and pundits, themselves. 2) A lot of those politicians and pundits (especially on the right, it has to be said) are backed by the think tank industrial complex that has sprung up to figure out ways to make certain ideas palatable rather than to generate new ideas - so it's difficult to filter through the genuine discontent they have and the disingenuous content they've consumed. 3) Beliefs are very often adopted emotionally, so rational discourse, especially in a debate format or where someone is going to be put on the spot in front of an audience, is not the way to change their mind, and it may not be the way to change the audience's mind, either, it's just a way of preaching to the choir. (Which I think is what you were somewhat saying as regards condescension and so on.) I just recently finished reading 'Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats' by David A. Hopkins and Matt Grossmann, and it makes the point that most Republican voters nevertheless support liberal policy initiatives, they've just been convinced that small government is more important than those policy initiatives. I feel like that explains the American situation very well, and it is not something that can be fixed via Stewart's approach of engagement and rational discussion. [1] www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXvTPHF4h

[@supermike12345]

jon stewart is a pretty complicated individual. its no wonder you couldnt break it down into something shorter. of course nobody remembers how centrist the daily show actually was. jon isnt "just" a comedian, but like so many that start a movement, it often takes on a life of its own. he also had real activism he did, most notible around the 9/11 stuff. honestly im just glad hes back shouting at something. i was going to pitch he do somethimg on youtube once a week where he just shouts angrily at a camera for 5 minutes or something. if anyone remembers he did look like all the tragedy going on was killing him and its good he left the show when he did. also he might not be a journalist, but he had many good people on the team that made it seem that he was.

[@KnowingBetter]

I went to the Rally to Restore Sanity. I'll never forgive Colbert for adding his right wing bs to it. I was a little confused by your video, though, since I vividly remember Occupy happening AFTER that. So i had to look it up to double check. Occupy was 2011. Stewart is a Boomer btw, born 1962.

[@appleteeth2915]

I remember when the Rally To Restore Sanity happened and, despite being a massive Jon Stewart/Daily Show fan, thinking what a giant waste of an opportunity it was. Also thank you for mentioning Dan Harmon - it has always bugged me that Brita became nothing more than a parody of a woke leftist whilst at least the other characters got to grow and change mostly for the better.

[@gateauxq4604]

I think it’s at least been heavily implied that Harmon based her in someone who turned him down; that kinda makes the character even grosser. She never vibed with me and it dimmed my appreciation for the show every time she showed up announcing what her cause du jour was.

[@Gibbypastrami]

@@gateauxq4604 I hadn’t heard that, maybe that’s what she was originally, but even Harmon has admitted he struggled to write for Brittany, he didn’t dislike her, just didn’t know how to make her fit, who was she supposed to bounce off of? Annie Troy and Abed were all close, they tried the storylines with Jeff and they were hit or miss, she had some good stuff with Shirley, and Pierce just stopped being a character The way her personality was originally written made her the antithesis to Troy and Abeds shenanigans, I think it would’ve been cool to see her and Shirley and Pierce become a trio, where she is helping them become more palatable, and they do the same with her Chevy Chase and Harmony feud ruined any possibility of Pierce having meaningful reactions with other characters, and personally I think Pierce would’ve become basically the Anti-Abed, but Pierce didn’t have a Annie or a Troy, people to ground him, hell he barely had an actor playing him after S2

[@JordanSullivanadventures]

This is a really good essay. Excellent choice of interviewers and great editing and storytelling

[@FoxMacLeod2501]

Yay! More Skip Intro! A point to the South Park ManBearPig (referenced around 44:40): I've always wondered exactly what Matt Stone and Trey Parker were getting at with the Al Gore parody; was it more so making fun of climate worry/worriers, or was more about the way climate change deniers were affecting the discourse? To top it off, and to raise as many questions as it answers, the follow-up 2-part episode (season 22, #6 & #7, _Time to Get Cereal_ & _Nobody Got Cereal?_ ) has Al Gore basically saying, to broadly paraphrase, "hey, I told you years ago, but no one believed me, and no one did anything. Now ManBearPig is unstoppable, and you're all screwed; and I don't want you to come crawling back asking me for help!" So now I really don't know what to make of the original episode, or where the creators of South Park stood on the issue back when the original episode aired... but I am happy they at least revisited it, now that we're basically incontrovertibly going to see the ecological collapse of our home planet because we went along with whatever made people rich and fed the beast of capitalism, instead of doing what was good for humanity. Anyway, I will say what I've said in previous comments: you're criminally underwatched, Jackson. Your production values, writing, and your narration are top-notch, and deserve a bigger audience and some amount of crew to help keep the workload from being a bottleneck to creativity. In the mean time, keep it up, buddy! I absolutely love your work!

[@StNick119]

I'm pretty sure they didn't believe in climate change, or thought it was heavily exaggerated, at the time of the original, and the follow-up two-parter is their apology of sorts. It would be consistent with their libertarian philosophy at the time, and other episodes which were disdainful towards environmentalists, such as the episode where they went on a school trip to South American rainforests, and the moral of the episode was that South Americans want logging and deforestation and whatnot for the economic activity that it brings, and that environmentalists were mainly white, out of touch Americans.

[@halycon404]

@@jelly.4125 Being passionate and being pretentious aren't the same. There's also a difference in mocking a person and mocking their cause. Al Gore was infinitely mockable. When South Park came around he'd already been Vice President for an entire term. Before that he was highly visible in the moral and culture wars of the 80s. He'd looked stupid on a national and world stage more than once. Now did he do good things in his career, yes. That doesn't stop everything else. Especially for people like the creators of South Park. That title card intro which has been there since the beginning is specifically mocking Al Gore's moral crusades of the 80s against an artists rights to say whatever they want. Al Gore had been on South Park's radar far before manbearpig. They've literaly been pulling part of a quote from him for their entire 20+ year run at the start of every episode. If you just looked at it as an indictment of climate change or their politics of it, you're missing a whole lot of the joke.

[@Surreal469]

There are some things missing since his new show. But yeah Jon Stewart isn't what's needed anymore. What we need is now found online with people like Jimmy Dore and Revolutionary Blackout Network

[@naomistarlight6178]

I'll never forget when he had Bill O'Reilly on the show, who said what Jon does is "reindeer games" and what he does, he described as real journalism. And I was like, for the first time, certain that a satirist was capable of doing more journalism than some who call themselves journalists.

[@nestgoblin7199]

Looking forward to you hitting 100k and all the videos to come- I'd definitely watch feature film length stuff from you, you're very methodical and well spoken, love the interviews!!

[@gorkmusic]

Jon Stewart's new podcast is really great and does great thoughtful deep dives into great moral questions and moral dilemmas. I, for one, am thrilled he's back.

[@luiscastaneda5250]

Idk bro the guy who critiqued sweat shops. Then goes an works for a company that operates sweat shops

[@r.s.richey9956]

@@luiscastaneda5250 doesn't matter which giant corporation you work for, they all have blood on their hands one way or another. Do you ever shop at Walmart, Target, or any big box store? They all carry products made in sweat shops or impoverished farmers. Sure, He should call them out on it, pressure them to make changes, but in this day and age there's no completely moral corporation with the means to host his show

[@luiscastaneda5250]

@@r.s.richey9956 then don't. Buy locally and support your community. Ps he just got $21 million from Apple. He is being paid by the profit of child qnd worker exploitation. Also these companies have Monopolies giving the consumer little to no choice, but to deal with them. The last president to do Monopoly busting was Theadore Roosevelt a +100 years ago.

[@ChiWillett]

​​​@@luiscastaneda5250I'm not sure if there exists any ethical consumption/business under capitalism, but fair point

[@evandonovan9239]

To address one point in here: "Colbert made Occupy look really disorganized, when the movement was intentionally disorganized." Well, it may have been - but isn't that a pretty significant failing for a protest movement. A movement with no clear plan to achieve its goals is pretty clearly going to fail. The Tea Party may have been astroturfing (although I don't think that's true for all who supported it), but at least it was comprised of people who knew how to get things done politically. Their solutions were not real solutions, but at least they offered a theory of change, whereas I don't recall anything from Occupy except grievances. And that's why Occupy's class-first leftism has largely been swept away in favor of the race-first leftism of today. And it's disappointing because I think an actual populist movement that emphasized the solidarity of workers across race could do great things for America.

[@mach489i]

Class reductionism always ends up as an effect recruiting tool of the far right

[@jsc315]

Pretty much. No one is going to know what you're fighting for when there's no clear message. You need to be organized and very clear on your message, otherwise well the media will mock and laugh at you like they did.

[@williamjameslehy1341]

@@mach489i bourgeois radlibs' favourite slogan to dismiss any call for genuine leftist change, "You're being a gateway drug to the alt-right!"

[@iggyboo]

I suspect that Jon didn't change, but the left did. Ultimately Jon and the DS never really leaned too far "left" vs right. It was more about truth to power and calling out the absurdities of both sides. At the time, that just meant calling out more of the "right" vs the "left", maybe it still is. I don't think Jon really belongs to the "left" tribe but more of an independent thinker that leans that way. He's at root a comedian. You have to be able to laugh at yourself before you can make fun of other people. Which means since he leans more "left" than right, he has to be able to laugh at the absurdities of the "left" as well.

[@electricme100]

John Stewart brought an entire generation to the news. And we stayed. I probably dove into Political Science because of that introduction. I don't think you're giving the early John Stewart enough credit. And he is incredibly modest. He gave his life to stand up to evil congressmen who repeatedly, year after year, denied benefits to people who GAVE EVERYTHING to try to save lives in the worst day in US history. John Stewart created the political humor television genre. He deserves credit for that. You really under-represented 29:28 him. You're also not taking into account the starkly different places that Journalists vs all other TV occupied at that time. John grew into Journalism. trump hadn't shown us the disgusting underbelly that grew and grew and the insanity of now.

[@sparkpenguin]

your last words on this video's subject, basically "jon stewart didn't change, we've just moved past him/don't need him anymore" was exactly what i was waiting to comment the entire video and that was an excellent place to leave off. TDS was a walk/run transition, if you will, for a huge age demo at the time. looking forward to part 2 because this breakdown was fantastic. i'd forgotten how dismissive TDS/jon stweart was toward occupy but i was so left by then i brushed it off as "just a part i didn't agree with so what" but media and comedy have canged so much it was hard to notice.

[@mattball2462]

Stewart was not like Tucker Carlson or the other pundits like him. That's a false equivalence. His whole point was that those guys specifically say outrageous stuff and make everything extra dramatic in order to get ratings. They ruin discourse by parroting talking points and even making stuff up. All Stewart did was make fun of the situation we were in and call out lies and hypocrisy. Yes, he did it to entertain people, but it's a fundamentally different product than Crossfire and the other cable "news" shows.

[@christophermiller3031]

@4:09 "the entire vibe of the show is weird and sad." *Shows video clip where John Stewart bemoans the idea of his show not being watched in its entirety, but by way of clips on KZbin* ... I feel like there could have been a better example as a follow up... Because... What he said is entirely true for me, and how he said it has me feeling kiiiiinda guilty.

[@jengorman2246]

Yeah his point is valid - we're definitely guilty of devouring bits and never the whole product anymore - which is a large problem when those bits were constructed to construct a larger narrative.

[@CaptRespect]

@@jengorman2246 Yeah but his new show is so boring. Monologue, clip, round table panel. Only 10 minutes are interesting if that. It feels lazy. It's been done to death.

[@christophermiller3031]

@@CaptRespect it's difficult to fully explain how consuming late night shows were way different in the days of cable... let me try? Sooo I haven't had satellite or cable for over 10 years now ... I DO miss being able to watch a complete late Show... I WISH the cable networks would give us complete versions of showson KZbin, but they most often cut up a show into many segments. back in the day I used to watch who Jon Stewart interviewed on the Daily Show because Colbert Report was on next. I would watch the late Show with David Letterman and his interviews were great. such interviews on such shows directly impacted some books I bought, etc. .... BUT NOW I do not watch ANY late night show interviews cuz I can simply consume the comedy heavy segments... it's so weird to think about... like if David Letterman had a modern day KZbin presence but it was 1999... the most viewed videos would be his daily top 10s. but like... the top 10s were more often cringe even though really popular... I ramble but really... I'm kinda pondering outloud to my fellow KZbin commenterzzzz 🖖420

[@bob_ombthreat]

Your "research'' as to the effective change in the Daily Show early years is wrong. Stewart hired an entirely new writing staff and head writer from The Onion, this was the sea change of the show. He says this in interviews.

[@mel2d2]

Glad this popped up in my feed. I’m from the weird, pocket generation between X and Millennials (got tech in HS/College, adults, but just barely, during 9/11). It was great to see all of this dissected. Helped me to see how and why I’m a little bit of both. Sorry for being late to the party!

[@AsterInDis]

Someone outside of the Today Show posse that I think has a wonderful contrast to Jon Stewart is Amber Ruffin. She cracks jokes but also dives deep into the audacity that this country has on so many levels, as well as taking time to dissect important issues.

[@subversivelysurreal3645]

Had Jon Stewart been dangerous, he wouldn’t have won all of those Emmy awards. Still, without him, being a Socialist and the USA’s (very bloody) policies was very lonely place, if you’re in the USA, until Bernie changed it ALL.

[@Lizzie-ve7kt]

You’re missing the point on the caring thing. If you care and deeply believe in anything to the point of not ever having any sort of healthy skepticism or questioning it then that’s extremely dangerous. I don’t think that Stewart was about being nonchalant I think he was more about cautioning people against getting too caught up in something to the point where they no longer question anything.

[@Freyas01]

One thing that doesn't necessarily come across in hindsight- before Jon and the Daily Show, "news" was generally treated/assumed to be trustworthy- i.e. Walter Kronkite or similar "newsmen" (i.e. Dan Rather)telling you what was going on in the world while trying to remove any bias. However, 24-hour news channels and ad-supported punditry had changed the landscape out beneath most people who still watched news programs and thought they were getting an unbiased prospective. That's why the Crossfire segment where he made a stink about being a comedy show instead of a news show had such a big impact. Then Fox won their lawsuit saying that Fox News was just "entertainment TV" and didn't have any responsibility to convey the truth, and now we have a situation where two halves of the country believe two entirely separate set of "facts" that contradict each other. Jon Stewart was more of a harbinger of the apocalypse- sounding a call for rationality before we descended into the abyss that we currently inhabit. The Daily Show didn't really line up behind Occupy because it was just still trying to be a comedy show, not the left-wing response to Fox News. The right wing's entire swing to crazyness and the rightward swing of Fox News really caught everyone off guard. It wasn't expected that Comedy Central counter the crazy right wing shift of Fox and the tea party in the early 2000's, that should have been the responsibility of the other news stations and/or the news viewers that should have seen the insanity that Fox was ushering in. I actually feel like that's a large reason that Jon retired from the Daily Show when he did- he was trying to be a comedian, but was being seen as the voice of the left wing in opposition of Fox instead. He wanted to make jokes, but people were tuning in to get a not-crazy take on the news instead of his jokes.

[@loretta_3843]

What a coincidence! I'm an Australian, so never had Jon Stewart on tv, but just today I was prompted to search for info about him only to see you uploaded this yesterday! How did you know? No, really, how did you know?!😳

[@lifotheparty6195]

I don’t know how your search is going but there are a few channels that put out old episodes of The Daily Show. It’s an interesting walk down memory lane regarding world and political events

[@Don-md6wn]

That's how internet algorithms work. You do a search for something, it gets shoved at you.

[@airpilot5233]

You mentioned Amusing Ourselves to Death, I had to comment. I had to read it for high school. I hated it at the time, but the older I get the more I agree with it. I even recommended it to one of my professors in college.

[@galactic85]

Guess I have another book to add to the stack of books I need to read/should be reading but are mostly just sitting on my book case right now.

[@Mike-zd8wq]

What awesome high school did you go to?

[@JordanSullivanadventures]

Huh, I feel like watching these old clips of him just make me appreciate how good Last Week Tonight if. John Oliver and his writing team have clearly evolved the form for the better: more systemic critiques, speaking truth to power, and overall sharper comedy IMO. I hadn't noticed just how patriotic Stewart is, even in his most aggressive critiques of the government. The way he seems to hold American values up as an ideal rather than as worthy of critique themselves weakens a lot of his points IMO.

[@unpredictableaxolotl3762]

Oh shit, when you said "we don't need him anymore" that hit HARD. Yes! That sums it up nicely: he did something for us beyond what he's capable of continuing to represent. Beautiful. I've had a lot of deep and conflicted feelings about this man and I think you've just resolved them. Thanks.

[@tylerkochman1007]

Stewart did some great things, but it is right to criticize the idea of not “picking sides”. The Eliel Wiesel (Holocaust survivor) has a lot of quotes about how the most harmful evil in our society is indifference: “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

[@rhaenyratargaryen1stofhern55]

He’s doing exactly what he did during his monologue on the daily show. After 9/11, it took on a whole new vibe. It went from being silly, made up clips to actual news. Although they are the first to tell you it was biased and sometimes made up. This new show is him just tackling one subject at a time, like Jon Oliver. It makes hard to digest information (war, climate change, civil unrest) easier to come to terms with. In between these shows, he has been a advocate for 9/11 first responders dealing with long term illness from the tragedy and war vets who were harmed by burn pits. He’s perhaps slightly more cynical than he was. To be fair, I remember the first host of the Daily Show, Craig Kilborn. And I also recall Jon Stewart hosting an early Comedy Central (HA! at the time) show Short Attention Span Theater.

[@benjaminpont220]

I’m deeply centrist (by European standards) myself and I feel like you really missed the point of who Stewart is and what Stewart does. Stewart was trying to unite people, he was trying to get everyone to look at the facts, and trying to get er everyone to be truly honest. I feel he felt that polarisation, at the end of the day, wasn’t gonna solve anything, ever. I feel personally that radicalism is very detrimental to being able to live together as a society, because ultimately that’s what’s gonna need to happen. I feel like leftists and conservatives very often try really hard to paint the “other side” as the enemy, and in that balance people like Stewart serve to keep a bridge between the two. To act as a moderator. They have to make fun of radicalism like they often do because it’s important, at least in my opinion, to make compromises in your beliefs. To learn to live with imperfection. You say Stewart is very anti beliefs, but I highly disagree. I think Stewart believes very very deeply that the only way to make democracy work is for everyone to be honest, and for everyone to compromise, to live together. Stewart was never an ally to anyone, that was never the point of his program, and I think if he was that he never would’ve been trusted like he is/was. Stewart is an essential part of democracy precisely because he isn’t aligned and believes deeply in every word he spits. I also think your kind of “not pushing my narrative= problem” rhetoric is a bit dumb at best.

[@rustyjames6131]

Great video. I think the comparison with South Park also highlights something else. Both shows were at their peak during the Bush years and declined after that. I think the Bush administration was just easier to make fun of while remaining "above it all" compared to the Obama and especially Trump years.

[@wynoglia]

We unfortunately have a new wave of "above it all"s in the form of 'enlightened centrists' Their growing numbers are concerning Or at least if not numbers, the voice "Above party lines" "Above the us/them mentality" "Above the squalor" And "seeing the real divide" Very irritating. Pompous ppl who think they have risen above the sheeple bcos they have identified that there are 2 extremes and "see" that both "have their own issues" Thanks Sherlock. But last I checked putting neo-pronouns into law doesn't hurt ppl as much as lynching Both sides are far from equal and taking the center of that isn't being enlightened at all

[@prplfleur]

@@wynoglia but what you just said shows a lack of self-reflection, because you think the biggest problem with the left is lack of appeal of pronouns, and compared that to lynching. So maybe you need people that are centrists to help you learn about the flaws in your ideology? If for nothing else, so you can improve.

[@mmsnorby]

"An Oral History of the Daily Show" is a great read that actually sheds some light about why the show was so different at the beginning. There was a huge power struggle between Stewart and his head writer Ben Karlin vs the rest of the production staff, who were Killborn holdovers. If you look at "The Daily Show" as an institution that predates Jon (as it is), rather than Jon's creation, it becomes clear that Jon was who he was at Day 1 and it just took some time to get the production staff on his side.

[@Eamonshort1]

Been subbed for over a year, love your regular stuff but this ep was something special for me. Keep up the good work

[@OtseisRagnarok]

I think it's fair to say he's a product of his time, where the prevailing attitude was "caring about literally anything at all = bad"

[@EphemeralTao]

Skip Intro: "We're declaring war on Gen-X!" Me (a Gen-Xer): Whatever, we're all gonna die soon anyway.

[@rustyjames6131]

Are you being sarcastic, dude?

[@EphemeralTao]

@@rustyjames6131 Being Gen-X, sarcasm is my natural state.

[@DLZ2000]

@@EphemeralTao I think Rusty is quoting The Simpsons. "I don't even know anymore."

[@gateauxq4604]

That hurt laughing at that. It’s kinda true but, like, whatever man.

[@jengorman2246]

Gen X was the first generation to realize as a whole we're fucked, but being the only ones had zero option but to systematically fall into the machine. The fatalistic sarcasm was a defense mechanism to deal with our inability to change anything. With Millennials and Gen Z here and boomers on the out, Gen X may not be alone in their realization, but man it's hard to break out of that self-preservation mode.

[@christopherfarley9331]

I like Jon Stewart more now. I think he is willing to ask the tough questions on the left as well as on the right. I like how he defended Joe Rogan and went after Neil Young who is a phony and self-serving, as he was to rumored to pull out due to pressure from the man who bought his music catalog and who was also beneficiary of the drug Pfizer that Joe Rogan criticized. Jon is willing to go after the Liberal media just as much as the Right and that is a good thing.

[@rini6]

This was great. I am actually gen x and watched Colbert and Stewart faithfully for years. I even went to the rally, which I did find to be kind of empty of meaning. I have since become more political and moved firmly to the left of my early 2000s self. My kids are adults now and are also progressive. I see Stewart et al as a sort of stepping stone for me. But I can’t speak for everyone in my generation or for every ex Daily Show fan. Either way, I see zero place now for complacent cynicism but every reason for impassioned goal directed cynicism. We are in an existential crisis and those that don’t see it better get out of the way.

[@matthewatwood207]

"To restore sanity and/or fear." When I arrived there and realized it was just a party to distract us without actually doing anything, I realized that was their whole shtick, that they wouldn't have been hired by comedy central if they had both a conscience and working memory.

[@dirrdevil]

Pretty similar story here. I didn't have as much as of a faithful interest in it; I wasn't as political then.

[@adamsandlerfan1537]

the real problem with john steward is his targeted attacks against deep dish pizza

[@Itcouldbebunnies]

The war against tomato soup in a bread bowl is completely justified. Me and my comrades of the Forces United against Culinary Knavery will not lay down our arms before we have drowned all those who dare call those rat swimming pools 'pizza' in their own uncooked marinara sauce. *DEUS VULT!*

[@bronzebackbassing18]

@@Itcouldbebunnies DEUS VULT fellow pizza enthusiast

[@Tenchigumi]

@@Itcouldbebunnies I think we should all unify under the notion that eating pizza with a fork is atrocious.

[@LegendShark]

The rally to restore sanity was around the same time i was seriously getting into a socialist org and I really was dissappointed in John's centrism. He could have maybe tried to rectify what he thought was the problem with Occupy and came out with good messaging about speaking truth to power. Instead he kinda rallied around nothing except the status quo and not being too loud or seeming too crazy, when there are in fact things that it's worthwhile to get loud about.

[@marybibik]

You have no business making content this good with under 100k subscribers. Video is great, and I think you make a point that needs to be larger in conversations about why the US is so polarized in 2022.

[@Kai-Made]

Hey Skip Intro. We spent much of 12-14 days just debating amongst ourselves during one of the smaller occupies debating ideas that the Tea Party brought to us. They had 10-15 people that wanted to join with us, but their message was not exactly what our message was. SO the debate lasted a long time, in the end they joined in...thinking that bodies bested the concept better than very few. It was a bad plan. They were agent provacateurs and ended up doubling back on a big march we had planned, stealing nearly everything or burning the rest. 3 months of hard work up in smoke. Yes they were decentralize, and intentionally obscure...and consensus built which makes anything and everything take 3000x times longer...but it worked and we somehow managed to provide for each other...and 20 some homeless people that the city mayor had escorted to our camp because he could. Many of the folks involved by choice or otherwise was truly amazing folks...it was just a few that ruined it.

[@mattchew6426]

In defense of Gen X, we had everything that stood for something fall apart or outright destroyed during our years. So we're a DEEPLY cynical generation that has learned to distrust everything...

[@JEEDUHCHRI]

Yep. A cascade of failures from some of society’s most cherished/entrenched institutions. That tends to leave folks a little hardened.

[@rileykim6068]

Yeah, well that stuff was never there for Gen Z and plenty of us still give a shit.

[@mattchew6426]

@@rileykim6068 Gen Z had technology bring the world to your fingertips, and simplify/streamline everything for you. So you kids aren't going to get any sympathy from a person who writes out my shopping list (in cursive) and only got a trophy when I earned that trophy by winning it. Participation isn't a struggle, advancing through adversity is...

[@rileykim6068]

@@mattchew6426 I have literally no idea what that has to do with not being a cynical asshole. The world objectively has less safety nets than when you watched them disappearing. Also, I don't appreciate the idea that because you didn't get participation trophies and write your shopping list on physical paper that means you've suffered more. I'm both black and have had cancer, I've been through quite a bit of adversity. I'm not saying you haven't been through serious things, but the reasons you just pitched seem like old man shaking his hand at the sky dipshit stuff.

[@ToruKun1]

@@mattchew6426 LMAO you really think Gen Z-ers (and Millennials) ever cared about receiving participation trophies? Those were created by YOU (and Boomers), the parents of Gen Z-ers, so you could pretend your kid actually accomplished anything of worth.

[@555Tbird]

My 2 cents before even seeing the video: Nothing really happened to John Stewart, the world just moved past him.

[@galactic85]

Pretty much.

[@xp7575]

More like he retired, we could def use him now

[@aj7058]

@@xp7575 he is literally working now and has been for a while.

[@CascadianRanger]

@@aj7058 not really a while, the shows only had 1 season during covid on a streaming service not many havw

[@brettjacobson4600]

This. Tim Pool (take a big grain of salt with him) said the same thing: my thoughts and positions are the same, the rest of the liberals have moved farther to the left now, so it looks like I'm on the right. I'm more your old-school, traditional liberal.

[@allieannette3712]

I reject the idea that, because people viewed him as a journalist, Stewart had an obligation to them. Other than that, good video.

[@hyperballad4971]

in your Roast of Gen X, i’d love to see you touch on Daria. Specifically, the episode where Daria and Jodie has to do a project together where they start a business. Jodie experiences racism when they first try to get approved for a business loan, so she “sells out” (in Daria’s opinion) on the second try by using her father’s status as a monied businessman to get approved on the second try. Daria’s indignation at Jodie’s tactics in that moment pinpointed my disdain for her character and Gen X attitudes in general

[@BlackXSunlight]

I’m so looking forward to an essay on this

[@wildfyre-music]

@43:03 You don't understand what true centrism is, which is ironic in a video where you talk about getting your research right before platforming it The centrist view on the color of the sky is that the sky is blue. A centrist does not need to rely on keeping centered opinions on everything, some things are very easy to draw conclusions on. The core of centrist philosophy is that there are aspects of both the left and right that can be correct, and in harmony, with creating a prosperous society. A centrist does not take the center of an issue, but rather stakes out a side that is either left or right leaning - but that decision is not contingent on how left or right leaning their previous stances have been. A socially left leaning centrist will generally agree with a lot of left leaning ideas when it comes to how we engage as people (pro LGBTQ+, pro immigration, pro abortion). However, that same centrist might be fiscally right leaning, and believe that certain financial policies should lean more towards an individuals autonomy. There are no contradictions being made in this breakdown, and reality is not being subverted. That is one flavor of true centrism, and it amazes me how consistently people on all sides of politics subvert and misrepresent this - all while demonizing those who choose to critically analyze their stances, rather than just going with whatever their favorite political sports team says is in vouge...

[@drachna]

This guy gets it. The way that I've always thought about it is that there are a lot of very intelligent people on the right and a lot of very intelligent people on the left who disagree with each other on a great very many things. One side can't be right about everything. It helps when you live in a country that has more than two viable parties who you can vote for, but I think that the vast majority of people take a little bit from camp a and a little bit from camp b.

[@krzysz5023]

Nobody on corporate media had a good take on Occupy at the time. Something something about capitalism not wanting to tear down capitalism. That's why the Tea Party could be given nuance but not Occupy. Because one reenforced capitalism and the other... didn't

[@jpinnacle]

Thank you for being the one commenter here who really hit the nail on the head.

[@sallyjrwjrw6766]

Exactly! TDS falls under the corporate media umbrella. Comedy Central is owned by Time-Warner and Viacom. They want to make money, not disrupt capitalism. So it's better to point and laugh and pick apart any threat.

[@DavetheTurnip]

I watched both Stewart and Colbert for years. I appreciated the deep dive you were able to do on Stewart’s approach and I look forward to part two 😃

[@167logan]

Speak for yourself. I love Jon's new show. I love the segments where he's with his writers.

[@modelmajorpita]

Jon Stewart being easily fooled by appearance was always a problem, but even if he wasn't gullible he was also a patriot and a capitalist and that meant he would always be more open to far-right ideas than even moderate leftist ideology. He refused to ever consider that the problem was America itself, not a bad apple politician or cable news stirring up drama.

[@mattosika]

Tell me you've never seen Jon Stewart without telling me you've never seen Jon Stewart.

[@modelmajorpita]

@@mattosikaI watched him for years, he's a gullible liberal who loves America and capitalism and the cops and that keeps him from ever talking about real solutions to problems.

[@mattosika]

@@modelmajorpita I get it. You've never seen him. You don't need to convince me.

[@modelmajorpita]

@@mattosikaNo, you need to convince me that you have watched a single thing Jon Stewart is in. Either you don't know the difference between a leftist and a liberal or you have never watched Jon Stewart because there is no way to watch him and not realize he's a liberal uninterested in real change to the status quo. Seriously, why are you pretending to be a fan of his when you clearly have never seen anything he's done?

[@drewengel7073]

I feel that Stewart treated the Occupy movement as they presented themselves to the world. Even if you have a good message, it will always get buried by bad optics. The problem was that Occupy's message was universally disliked in most of America and their optics were even worse. The Tea Party, in contrast, got people elected and is a significant force in politics to this day.

[@MyAmbianceLiveNow]

Racism will always get votes - bad optics is oftentimes just great propaganda

[@TheMidwestAtheist]

But then this is an argument for just how full of s$%& Stewart was in thinking that most Americans (what did he claim? 70-80%?) were in agreement and it was really the politicians and journalists that were manufacturing division. In reality, the electorate is deeply divided and the politicians are a reflection of that. (I will note, though, that I am working on a premise that many actually agreed with the issues Occupy was trying to address, even if the message "was universally disliked," though I find that to be an exaggeration. It's not clear if you would agree with such a premise. Given that there have been some progressives elected as of late, like AOC, it would seem to be a disconnect with reality to suggest that people also "universally" disagreed with the issues raised by the movement.) Edit: Oh...and I can't forget to point out again that the Tea Party was funded by rich white people. So, gee, what a surprise that a heavily funded faux-grassroots movement would have more success than an _actual_ grassroots movement without much for big money donors. Who could have seen that coming!!!

[@Itsjimmay]

The optics were bad because police were pepperspraying protesters for daring to challenge the rich and powerful, which is no different than the BLM movement protesting these same police officers and the greater criminal justice system for the unfair treatment of POC in custody.

[@drewengel7073]

@@Itsjimmay So, the harmful message that some Occupy protestors gave about letting the banks fail, which would have crashed the global economy was because police peppersprayed them.

[@Itsjimmay]

@@drewengel7073 Don't be obtuse. The banks failed because they gave out loans they knew couldn't be paid back and nobody went to jail for it.

[@christophermiller3031]

@8:47 I have not seen this for over 20 years. The nostalgia is strong with this one... And it's not the typical nostalgia feeling. We need more words to explain nostalgia.

[@ane3sha]

ugh i love this channel so much every video knocks it outta the park

[@jasonb993]

Liberalism has gone way further left since Jon was a host. Democratic values have changed a bit too. For example, Joe Rogan has only been noted for voting for the Democratic Party and has said he’s a big fan of many socialist programs. Yet, Democrats now demonize him. In the 2000s they would have accepted him and probably used him for advertising. Things have changed.

[@matthewa6027]

Pretty sure rogan gets attacked because of the far right grifters he has on his show with no push back from him at all.

[@tarod3]

You mean the people his viewers want on? If someone went on air with him talking about killing the impure… I was gonna say he’d shut them down but that’s great radio, and it shines a light on something that half the nation covers their ears about. There is a social utility to him being as unbiased as he can be and letting celebrities talk. There’s also no obligation for him to risk his business becoming political. All arguments I’ve heard otherwise imply there are no good actions, only varying levels of failure to meet our obligations.

[@matthewa6027]

@@tarod3 its incredibly unethical to let some speak for 3 hours about killing the impure on his platform. If his viewers want this, then its because rogan curated his audience that way.

[@king0n140]

Love your videos! Thanks for putting so much time into them!! 🤙🏽

[@shaan702]

Holy shit! 55:11-55:30 perfectly and succinctly put into words something I was feeling but couldn’t describe. Well done, sir!

[@serenity6831]

Great video! It's interesting to see how excessive hypocrisy pointing and irony poisoning go hand in hand.

[@aobstudio2427]

You are coming across as being critical of Jon Stewart that he did not solve all of these problems brought up over the years in his various shows. I would suggest you interview people in various forms of civil service, lower levels of government and news who may be of the "Daily Show" generation and ask them what kind of influence that Jon Stewarts political satire had on them. You may come out with a different perspective, or else you are just looking to try and get an interview with Jon by knocking him down and questioning why he didn't do more.

[@mv9653]

This video and Shaun’s video on JK Rowling feel like twins. A whole generation was raised on well-spoken neoliberal entertainers like Stewart and JKR and too many of us used them as political mouthpieces rather than look deeper at the systemic issues.

[@TrulyMadlyShallowly]

Neoliberal, really? Nah, buddy. You can't just retroactively relabel someone neoliberal because progressivism moved past him and he stayed in the same place.

[@mv9653]

@@TrulyMadlyShallowly neoliberalism refers to a philosophy. It may have been considered progressive at the time, but it was still neoliberalism.

[@mv9653]

@@TrulyMadlyShallowly like, you do realize that neoliberalism actually has a distinct definition often associated with the New Labor party of the early 90s. It was considered progressive by many when it was introduced and still considered progressive by many, but its values are the same as they were at the beginning.

[@TrulyMadlyShallowly]

@@mv9653 Are you talking about British New Labour and Blair's Third Way now? EDIT: Because: by none of the common definitions was that neoliberalism. Neither was it 'introduced in the nineties' - it had been the law of the land for over a decade. Neoliberalism is deregulation and free-market capitalism above all. It's privatization. It's tax reduction. Neoliberalism? Is Thatcher. Should I elaborate and say that Thatcher was not a progressive? Like many labor/social democratic movements and parties in Western Europe 'New Labour' got swept up in the dominant zeitgeist of a post-communist world. As was, in the US, president Clinton's administration. That zeitgeist did have the left accept - sometimes propagate, sometimes not fight - some of the tenets of neoliberalism, like privatization and free market thinking. That doesn't make 'New Labour' neoliberal. Compare it to classic liberals accepting Keynesian policies post-crisis. (The US use of the term "liberal" for cultural,and arguably economical, progressives only serves to confuse things further. As does the current marriage of cultural progressivism with neoliberalism that you sometimes find in places like Silicon Valley) I understand now why you were talking about 'neoliberalism' at all in reference to Stewart, if you take the Third Way'ers for neoliberals, but it's wrong. Stewart regularly calls for regulation. He regularly calls for government interference. To call Stewart 'neoliberal' is misunderstanding the philosophy entirely.

[@Noshbedumb]

Bro u dont understand how hype i am for the next part of this, when is it dropping??

[@Snooder]

I think the problem a lot of radicals on the left misunderstand about centrism or why "centrists" or "moderates" find radicalism so dang infuriating is that they forget that caring about an issue does not mean that reasonability has to go out the window. I care about a lot of things. I care about them very deeply. But just because I care about something doesn't give me the right to just do whatever in furtherance of that thing I care about. I'm not going to go overboard just because I care. That's not "detachment" or "apathy". And that's the point of the horseshoe theory. Not that it's bad to care, or that people on the extremes care too much. It's that once you've decided to abandon sound principles of reasonability or moderation just because you care a lot about a topic, then you end up in the same position. Because you now have the ability to justify any action; violence, autocracy, conspiratorial thinking, etc. And that abandonment of principle tends leads to the same place, regardless of WHY you are doing it.

[@bigjoepdx7228]

Bump

[@levadamusic]

It is a bad hypothesis of false equivalence, this hypoteses put a group that wants the extermination of the other and the group that is fighting to not be exterminated in the same expetrum , the horseshoe theory places the second group as equivalent to the first group, it gives the false impression that the political center is not extreme, does not have authoritarian postures, is that it is a lie.

[@Snooder]

@@levadamusic Clearly you didn't actually read or understand my point. The point is not that people on the extreme left or the extreme right are the same. The point is WHY people in the center who do agree with those on the extremes don't become extreme themselves. And it's not a matter of lack of caring. It's a matter of principle and wanting to maintain boundaries of acceptable behavior. You can say that the issue that you care about demands an extreme response, but does it really? Or is that just a trap to justify ever more unreasonable and unacceptable actions?

[@IanZainea1990]

39:28 I find smugness repellent after a while. Which is why I can only take so much John Stewart. And why he failed to actually reach anyone who wasn't already on board

[@tim290280]

Nicely said. I've recently been in the same space trying to figure out Stewart, including revisiting his older stuff. His stuff is very liberal/centrist and unwilling to acknowledge its own flaws/message, while at the same time being somewhat apathetic. The comparison to South Park is very apt, as it wants to mock stuff without ever taking a position, which is gutless.

[@TwoMarshmallows1]

Thank you for this video. It was really well done and you clearly did your research. At the time, there was some criticism of Stewart from people who were also fans, and it was similar to what you state in this video. But it was mostly within small online groups, or that was my experience, at least. One thing I'd like to add is the perspective of people outside the US and/or those directly affected by the Bush administration. At the time, the patriotic fervour in the US meant that you absolutely did not criticise the government. People lost friends and family, were accused of being terrorists/terrorist sympathisers, lost their jobs, were assaulted, had windows smashed and placed on watch lists. This included many journalists who were just doing their jobs. Jon Stewart was an American, on an American network, actually speaking out and vocally criticising the Bush Administration. The only other person I recall doing that at the time was Michael Moore. This was huge for people outside the US because it meant at least someone was trying. Someone was doing something. Someone was using their platform to at least say 'this is wrong'. This will sound strange to some people today, but many of us were genuinely scared for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's safety. Colbert's courage at the White House Correspondent's Dinner in 2006 cannot be overstated. I absolutely agree with your criticism and a lot of what you say also bothered me at the time. One criticism many people had of Stewart/Daily Show was the insistence on 'both sides-ing' every issue. I remember Stewart mocking Chelsea Manning for minor things like hiding information on a Lady Gaga CD, as if that was on the same level as the crimes Manning revealed or her subsequent horrific mistreatment. That upset me and a lot of other people at the time (still does). I remember watching that clip you showed of Code Pink and being pretty angry and confused. Shouldn't Stewart have applauded their work? Another criticism is that there was never any real call to action. Yes, Stewart and the Daily Show revealed hypocrisy, but there was never any discussion as to what people should do about it. As you said, caring and protesting in the 'wrong way' were presented as bad things. The Daily Show ended up being cruel to people who didn't deserve it and had minimal power, while those inflicting the most harm just got a scathing joke told about them. (Side note: I do think John Oliver has evolved. He's criticised his own past jokes and presents a plan of action at the end of his shows, albeit a very broad one.) The Daily Show was cathartic for many of us at the time. I am grateful for the good it did, and I also think it's very worthwhile presenting the criticism you do in this video. Ultimately, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show had bosses, and they probably couldn't rock the boat too much without being cancelled. What happened to Larry Wilmore and the Nightly Show was both shocking and not a surprise. Thank you again for your hard work. I've recently discovered your channel and am really enjoying it. (Edit: I just remembered that it's worth looking up how Wyatt Cenac was treated by Stewart at the time. It's pretty appalling.)

[@IkomaTanomori]

If people understood what anarchists like Occupy were really about, their complaint would actually be "do you really expect me to spend all my time in community meetings???" (No, but it's a funnier joke about Occupy that doesn't punch down, unlike Stewart's material on it)

[@chinafuture6484]

Stewart is corporate shill through and through. Total fake leftist licking the boots of his corporate masters.

[@wesleywyndam-pryce5305]

@@chinafuture6484 who cares what someone who claims to what everyone dead thinks?

[@ChiWillett]

Actually though