I should have posted this last week. My estimation for Jon Stewart and the Daily Show has declined quite a bit. Why? His wrong-headed treatment of Harry Belafonte's support of Chavez in Venezuela and Belafonte's quite appropriate statement that Bush is a bigger terrorist than Bin Laden.Here is a brief summary of Stewart's remarks:
Link: The Daily Show: January 9, 2006 - TV Squad.
And what the hell's up with Harry Belafonte all, like, calling Bush the "greatest tyrant in the word, greatest terrorist in the world"? Isn't he supposed to be a Goodwill Ambassador? And is Bush really a greater terrorist than Bin Laden (who has a "Greatest Terrorist in the World" mug from his grandchildren to back him up)? Anyway, Belafonte said told Chavez that millions of Americans were supporting Venezuela's revolution. Jon can't help but be amused by this, saying, "I don't there are millions of Americans who know where Venezuela is..."
El Calypsologist Senior Correspondent Rob Corddry joined in to talk about Belafonte. I truly expected a "lime in the coconut" joke at any moment (lime in the cocaine? I don't know... I was expecting any sort of half-assed variation) but I was wrong... Instead, we got some "Banana Boat" jokes (y'know, they daaay-o song). Bottom line is... Mr. Harry Belafonte be bananas.
The tenor of Stewart's dismissive remarks was that Belafonte should keep out of politics and stick to what the knows, entertainment. Apparently, Stewart is unaware of Belafonte's historic role in struggles for civil rights in the US and against apartheid in South Africa. Martin Luther King Jr. once said:
Belafonte’s global popularity and his commitment to our cause is a key ingredient to the global struggle for freedom and a powerful tactical weapon in the civil rights movement
in America.
Additionally, "Belafonte was vital in making the connection between the labor and civil rights movements and was relied on for organizing such strategies."
Belafonte was the person who bailed Martin Luther King out of jail in Birmingham:
It was he who bailed Martin Luther King out of the Birmingham jail. It was he who wouldn't perform in the south during the period of segregation. It was he who helped to organize the March on Washington. He railed against apartheid in South Africa. Civil rights and human rights: Harry Belafonte has used his extraordinary intelligence, vision, talent and visibility to bring those issues to the world's attention.
Spot on, Jodi. I was disturbed at Stewart's take as well. He could have pulled those lines from O'Reilly's own mouth. Now that Stewart is clearly losing his comedic and politcal edge, I guess that Colbert is all we have left!
Posted by: mattcalarco | January 14, 2006 at 02:13 PM
There are some dubious political posturing decisions being made, that seems pretty clear. Probably the networks simply can't affort to have two radical shows so closely linked, and their feeling some political pressure.
I guess we're left with endless, somewhat forced parodies of O'Reilly then. Or, one could argue that Stewarts just making the usual perennial consessions, much like R. Murrow. Nothing new there.
Posted by: Matt | January 14, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Wow, it is so great to hear this opinion elsewhere. It really exposed how much the 'critical' democrats quickly turn reactionary when they see a legitimate left politics taking place. Interesting to see the boundary of the left exposed so openly, but I also wonder if his appointment to Oscars this year didn't directly influence those comments....
Posted by: Dan | January 14, 2006 at 06:58 PM
Thanks for your comments, Matt and Dan. Dan, I bet you are right about the Oscars--which then amplifies my disappointment in Stewart.
Posted by: Jodi | January 14, 2006 at 08:06 PM
Matt (Christie), at the risk of romanticizing Murrow, interviewing celebrities isn't the same as misrepresenting a history of political commitment and engagement.
Posted by: Jodi | January 14, 2006 at 08:10 PM
This is true.
Then again, is it the man himself or his aura being ridiculed? As you know, I found the recent foiling of Mark Crispin Miller rather hilarious. Surely the self-sacrilizing of the left could use a few pin thrusts now and then?
Posted by: Matt | January 14, 2006 at 09:50 PM
or sacralizing, if you prefer
Posted by: Matt | January 14, 2006 at 09:54 PM
Yes, Matt, but somehow we always find the pin hitting the balloon when it floats over South America. A la the gratutious slaps in the NYT - Lula's a drunk, Evo Morales's funny injun rebellion, Obrador built a bad on-ramp, etc...
Posted by: CR | January 14, 2006 at 09:55 PM
So criticize the structural imbalances causing that tendency, not the act of satire itself (?)
People will always make gratuitous slaps, you may as well ask them to stop talking.
Posted by: Matt | January 14, 2006 at 09:58 PM
Matt, to my mind the problem is the complete ignorance of Belafonte's history as an activist; Stewart makes him just an entertainer. Belafonte is hardly one of these 'activists' who really just 'plays one on tv." He is the real thing. And Stewart's smug sarcasm on this score needs to be exposed and criticized.
Posted by: Jodi | January 15, 2006 at 11:20 AM
I don't know why your surprised. Do you think that a brilliant man like John Stewart is unaware of what Mr. Belafonte has done in his life? Lines are being drawn, and the heat is on. When this happens you might be surprised who crumbles under the pressure.
Posted by: Virgil Johnson | January 15, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Jodi, I just wanted to thank you for bringing this to my attention. I tried to open up the subject a little further on my blog.
Posted by: Virgil Johnson | January 17, 2006 at 01:19 AM
maybe Belafonte is blowing his historical role as an activist by supporting Chavez, a naro-terrorist and a profiteer who has used rape and torture to destabilization Columbia (yes, Columbia) and capitalize on the drug trade...
...John Stewart, a strong proponent of the freedom of the press, takes aim at Belafonte for his support of a dictator who has censored all political opposition..
Posted by: Rodkong | January 17, 2006 at 12:27 PM
To me this brings up the broader question of rhetorical deficit in which "liberals" (and "radicals" especially) will always find themselves. You know, the 'pathos of indignation' one where certain things just aren't funny (conservatives can always laugh at themselves, because to them it's all just a business game anyway, etc).
There's nothing wrong with satire for satire's sake (and all Jon Stewart's targets seem like fair game to me), but maybe it's the potential for (political) seriousness that makes for truly great satire. Hardly surprising that Steward occassionally fails in this regard, given the circumstances.
Posted by: Matt | January 22, 2006 at 01:58 PM
or Stewart, if you prefer.
Posted by: Matt | January 22, 2006 at 01:58 PM
I can't believe this post ingnores the 'tongue-in-cheek' aspect of Stewarts' broadcasts. I listened to the broadcast, and Jon was absolutely in support of Harry Belafonte. As usual, he expressed his views in such a way as to make them seem (appropriately) ridiculous - evidently you either missed that in all his earlier broadcasts, or you chose to see this one as something different - for reasons known only to you
Posted by: Garland Black | January 24, 2006 at 06:18 PM
Garland I would like to believe you are right. They showed another scene this month with Jon saying something like "Here is Chavez posing with Sheehan, that's a big downer for his credibility." This was after Chavez joked that the devil stood in the same place previously, refering to Bush. Then Stewart interviewed the devil, who says that if Bush is going to hell, so is Chavez.
On one hand, since Stewart appears to be anti-war, his association between Chavez and Sheehan would appear to make Chavez look good.
On the other hand, his comments appear to go harder on Chavez than say Chirac. In that vein I am inclined to think that when it comes to foreign policy, the Daily Show is center-left Democrat. The politician TDS seems to admire the most is Howard Dean. But as for where TDS is going with Chavez I can't tell yet. If TDS is breaking with Belafonte, Sheehan, and Glover on Chavez, then it is a good question, what is pushing them that way? And what is he saying about Sheehan?
There are other discussions going on at:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001970
and
http://dominionpaper.ca/weblog/2006/02/stewart_on_chavez.html
Posted by: TDSer | September 25, 2006 at 12:26 AM
Thanks for your clear analysis. This was definitely one of the times I actually cringed at just how wrongheaded Stewart and the show can be at times. I find it so bizarre that Stewart doesn't believe the Bush Administration about anything but their villification of Chavez. If they're against him, maybe he's doing something RIGHT.
Posted by: Darlene | October 19, 2007 at 10:12 PM