COMM 150: Class act? Jon Stewart replies to anti-Semitic outburst on CNN and explains why the media need to say "bad monkey" more often

It's a real nothingburger of a story, but the coverage of Comedy Central show host Jon Stewart's response to an anti-Semitic outburst by former CNN show host Rick Sanchez tells us something about the current state of American mass media.

Maybe.

Or maybe it doesn't. As someone in the media once said, you decide.

There's a link here:

Jon Stewart Addresses Rick Sanchez Firing On 'Daily Show' (VIDEO)
But first, let's look at some of the issues involved. We'll have a better link below.

We've talked some about these issues before, in the context of the "watchdog role" of the press (for more background click here for a Pew Center report) and other matters that just might come up on the midterm (if you get my drift). In fact, Stewart has come up with the best definition of the watchdog role I've ever seen. I'll quote it below, and I'll put it in red so you'll find it and remember it. This Sanchez-Stewart kerfuffle is broader than that: It raises questions of what responsibility the media have to society in general, what responsiblity any of us have to society in general.

Here's the background. Last week on a satellite radio program, Sanchez said he thought Stewart is a bigot and went on to suggest he believes the media are controled by Jews. It all fits together - kind of - because Stewart is Jewish, and frequently works it into his routines. It got Sanchez fired immediately from his position at CNN. That weekend, Stewart worked the kerfuffle into his routine at a charity benefit over the weekend.

Which would just be a couple of media celebrities talking trash at each other, except for a couple of things:

• Last year, in a Time magazine poll, Stewart was voted "the most trusted newsman in America" (which ain't bad for someone who doesn't report the news but which still means something).
  
• At the end of October Stewart and Stephen Colbert, another comedian with a more-or-less liberal slant on things, are holding a tongue-in-cheek rally in Washington, D.C. "to restore sanity ... for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler. Or Charlie Chaplin in certain roles." He's also called it the "march to take it down a notch for America."
  
• Stewart's response to Sanchez, both at the autism benefit and on his show, was kind of graceful, especially for a guy whose business is satire [defined as a genre in which "vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement"]. Satire is a form of comedy, and therefore it involves getting laughs out of audiences. But I thought it was as if he's trying to take the rhetoric down a notch himself.
  
• As we watch Stewart's routine on the Monday night show, be listening for what he says about the media. What specific vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings does he hold up to ridicule.
  
• Question: Stewart is doing satire. What responsibility does a satirist have to society? To his audience that persumably will pay money for him to make them laugh?
  What responsiblity does a comedian have to the public welfare? Does a satirist have more than other comedians?

Here's the clip. Let's watch it.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Hurty Sanchez
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Last week, before Sanchez went on the radio, Stewart was interviewed by Terry Gross of National Public Radio's "Fresh Air" program. It was featured in an NPR story "Jon Stewart: The Most Trusted Name In Fake News" ... it is really worth listening to, but here are some highlights from the transcript.

My favorite is Stewart's take on the "watchdog role" of the media. He didn't use the word "watchdog," and he didn't use the word "role," but I think he nails it:

I'm less upset with politicians than [with] the media. I feel like politicians — the way I explain it, is when you go to a zoo and a monkey throws feces, it's a monkey. But when the zookeeper is standing right there and he doesn't say, 'Bad monkey' — somebody's gotta be the zookeeper. I feel much more strongly about the abdication of responsibility by the media than by political advocates. They're representing a constituency. Our culture is just a series of checks and balances. The whole idea that we're in a battle between tyranny and freedom — it's a series of pendulum swings. And the swings have become less drastic over time. That's why I feel, not sanguine but at least a little bit less frightful, in that our pendulum swings have become less and less. But what has changed is the media's sense of their ability to be responsible arbiters. I think they feel fearful. I think there's this whole idea now that there's a liberal media conspiracy, and I think they feel if they express any authority or judgment, which is what I imagine is editorial control, they will be vilified.

Discussion question (if we get to it): If the media are the watchdog ... or the zookeeper (choose your favorite metaphor) ... then who watches the watchdog (or keeps the zookeeper from throwing stuff)? Discuss, post your answers to the blog and/or just think about it. This is a question that may come back at you (if you get my drift) one way or another as we go along.