Jon Stewart Is Back to Weigh In - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/15/magazine/jon-stewart-interview.html?searchResultPosition=1
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Jon Stewart Is Back to Weigh In
By David Marchese
For all the value Jon Stewart delivered as a political satirist and voice of reason during his 16-year-run as the host of ''The Daily Show,'' it's quite plausible to suggest that the political and media Bizarro World in which we live — where skepticism is the default, news is often indistinguishable from entertainment and entertainers have usurped public authority from the country's political leaders — is one that he and his show helped to usher in. ''Look, we certainly were part of that ecosystem, but I don't think that news became entertainment because they thought our show was a success,'' Stewart says. ''Twenty-four-hour news networks are built for one thing, and that's 9/11. There are very few events that would justify being covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So in the absence of urgency, they have to create it. You create urgency through conflict.'' That pervasive sense of political and social conflict has only grown since Stewart left the air in 2015. It has also made Stewart's post-''Daily Show'' silence — apart from a few guest spots on his old friend and colleague Stephen Colbert's show, he has been mostly out of the spotlight — more intriguing. What has he been thinking about this country while he has been gone? Now he has returned with some answers.
Stewart, who is 57, has written and directed ''Irresistible,'' a political satire about a small Wisconsin town that becomes engulfed in a political spectacle when a Democratic strategist and his Republican counterpart become fixated on the larger symbolic value and bellwether potential of the local mayoral race. The film, which will make its theatrical and video-on-demand premiere on June 26, is evidence that being away from the grind of a daily TV show has expanded rather than shrunk Stewart's satirical powers. He's well aware, though, that in this exceedingly polarized time, making a comedy that takes shots at both political parties, as ''Irresistible'' does, is an invitation to criticism. ''You're going to have people on the left who go, In the time of Trump, all you should be doing is a 'Fahrenheit 11/9'; there is no purpose other than to destroy the mother ship,'' Stewart says. And the other side's possible reaction to his return? ''There are people on the right predisposed to say, '[expletive] that guy.' '' Some things never change.
How strange is it, after having been basically out of the public eye for five years, to be coming back with something now? ''The world is on fire, here's my new movie'' seems like an awkward spot to be in. It's like showing up to a plane crash with a chocolate bar. There's tragedy everywhere, and you're like, ''Uh, does anybody want chocolate?'' It feels ridiculous. But what doesn't feel ridiculous is to continue to fight for nuance and precision and solutions.
You know, I've been trying to think of some precise, encapsulating question to ask you about what we've been witnessing over the last few weeks, and everything I was coming up with felt forced or phony. Maybe it's better, because you've been eloquent during times of crisis in the past, just to ask what you've been thinking about and seeing in the aftermath of George Floyd's killing? I'd like to say I'm surprised by what happened to him, but I'm not. This is a cycle, and I feel that in some ways, the issue is that we're addressing the wrong problem. We continue to make this about the police — the how of it. How can they police? Is it about sensitivity and de-escalation training and community policing? All that can make for a less-egregious relationship between the police and people of color. But the how isn't as important as the why, which we never address. The police are a reflection of a society. They're not a rogue alien organization that came down to torment the black community. They're enforcing segregation. Segregation is legally over, but it never ended. The police are, in some respects, a border patrol, and they patrol the border between the two Americas. We have that so that the rest of us don't have to deal with it. Then that situation erupts, and we express our shock and indignation. But if we don't address the anguish of a people, the pain of being a people who built this country through forced labor — people say, ''I'm tired of everything being about race.'' Well, imagine how [expletive] exhausting it is to live that.
I get that you're saying that the police and policing are a mirror of societal power structures, but it doesn't quite address police brutality. We can't absolve that. Police brutality is an organic offshoot of the dehumanization of those power structures. There are always going to be consequences of authority. When you give someone a badge and a gun, that's going to create its own issues, and there's no question that those issues can be addressed with greater accountability. It can be true that you can value and admire the contribution and sacrifice that it takes to be a law-enforcement officer or an emergency medical worker in this country and yet still feel that there should be standards and accountability. Both can be true. But I still believe that the root of this problem is the society that we've created that contains this schism, and we don't deal with it, because we've outsourced our accountability to the police.
Does the scale and intensity of the protests suggest some positive strides toward accountability? Maybe. Look, every advancement toward equality has come with the spilling of blood. Then, when that's over, a defensiveness from the group that had been doing the oppressing. There's always this begrudging sense that black people are being granted something, when it's white people's lack of being able to live up to the defining words of the birth of the country that is the problem. There's a lack of recognition of the difference in our system. Chris Rock used to do a great bit: ''No white person wants to change places with a black person. They don't even want to exchange places with me, and I'm rich.'' It's true. There's not a white person out there who would want to be treated like even a successful black person in this country. And if we don't address the why of that treatment, the how is just window dressing. You know, we're in a bizarre time of quarantine. White people lasted six weeks and then stormed a state building with rifles, shouting: ''Give me liberty! This is causing economic distress! I'm not going to wear a mask, because that's tyranny!'' That's six weeks versus 400 years of quarantining a race of people. The policing is an issue, but it's the least of it. We use the police as surrogates to quarantine these racial and economic inequalities so that we don't have to deal with them.
Given all that has happened over the last four years — let alone the last month — is there any part of you that wishes you were more regularly a part of the conversation? No. I think there are different ways to be in the conversation. I consider a career to be a conversation. Action is conversation, and I've taken more action in the last four or five years than I ever have in my life. Sometimes that action can speak more profoundly than a daily monologue. So I don't view myself as being out of the conversation: I view myself as not having a show. And if you're asking, Do you wish you had a show? Sometimes I do. But not the one that I had. The one that I had is in wonderful hands and continues to elevate in a way that I couldn't have. My efficacy for that kind of conversation has passed.
For the entire article Click Here
Tags
Who is online
755 visitors
From the Article:
Trump has defined the terms of the fight.
Yep, he sure has. Almost feel sorry for Biden, but he's lost and stumbling around in the wilderness.
No charisma, no gravitas, no plan, no clue....no hope for the Dems this time around....again.
And of course, the majority of Americans are not buying the stinky crap the left is trying to sell.
.
Jon Stewart is not an objective observer. Satire depends upon highlighting conflict and contradiction to be effective. As a satirist, Jon Stewart has always been biased toward division. Satire is a charlatan's trick.
Stewart presents his views concerning the police in a divisive manner. Stewart uses the charlatan's trick of presenting contradictions to create the appearance of presenting an objective viewpoint. Make no mistake, Stewart's conclusions are biased toward a viewpoint based upon a highly selective and divisive prejudice.
Stewart is only presenting a satirical 'truth' from his prejudicial point of view. A biased truth cannot be allowed to become an universal truth. Stewart isn't providing guidance for solutions. Stewart is reinforcing and perpetuating prejudices rather than searching for truth. It's a charlatan's trick employed by a charlatan.
Make no mistake, your conclusions are biased toward a viewpoint based upon a highly selective and divisive prejudice.
Pretending you're not part of the problem is just more disingenuous hypocrisy.
Stating the obvious is not a bias. Ignoring the obvious relies upon a prejudicial point of view.
Jon Stewart does not speak truth. Jon Stewart expresses opinion that is supported by a highly selective bias. That only states the obvious.
He has a point of view. Whether or not you agree has no pertinence on the fact that it is his point of view. I feel that it is pertinent and germane to the discussions that we are having now. Why don't you read the article and comment on something he says?
That's your opinion based on your personal bias. You stated zero facts to dispute even a single word from Jon Stewart.
Yes, which is why it's so obvious that those who continue to ignorantly claim there is no systemic racism clearly base that flawed opinion on their own personal prejudicial view.
At times he presents his opinion like in this case where he is being interviewed for an upcoming movie, but far more frequently he is stating facts and statistics. Both in his fight for 9/11 first responders health care and when he was on the Daily Show exposing the Bush administrations ignorant choice to invade Iraq. And his supposedly "highly selective" bias is really just a "highly educated" or "highly experienced" bias which I don't mind at all. I don't really give a fuck what Old Jim Bob down at the bait shack who dropped out of 5th grade has to say on politics or social justice, but Jon Stewart speaks truth and reason.
Jon Stewart puts forward a narrative based on the flawed viewpoint that the police represent authoritarian (or totalitarian, as you choose) control over society. Stewart claims that the police are a reflection of society and that reflection shows a society that is racist.
Stewart is expressing a point of view that is emotively appealing but deliberately ignores reality. Stewart is expressing a point of view that suspected criminals are actually victims of the police. But why police do what they do isn't the important question. The really important question to keep in mind is why do we need police?
Stewart glibly ignores what the police are expected to do. Police can't choose to ignore 'bad' people as does Stewart. The public would be upset if the police chose to ignore crime as does Stewart.
Crime is also a reflection of society.
Hey DP, Growing up in Oklahoma I had straight up racist teachers and especially coaches in my public school. I certainly worked with lots of unrepentant racists and most bosses I ever had were openly racist. Pretty much every white guy who ever suited up knows thst this is normal in America. I cannot understand why there is so much denial of the fact that America and Americans continue to suffer greatly on both sides of the racial divide. The problem is that the racists do not or cannot ever acknowledge that they suffer, too...
No. He says:
This might be why the issue keeps turning up, over and over. You say:
Basically, yes. He says (emphasis mine)
This is the difference between what a society says and the ways in which it acts. We here in the US may say that we are not discriminatory, we may have laws that say all people have equality, but when one drills down and looks at the granular level, we see that the differences among us are still present and that some of those differences (George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Rodney King, et.al.) manifest themselves in terms of race.
He says:
You said:
I don't think so. He just is not addressing that within his response to the question asked.
And since you brought it up:
Define, in your view, what role the police are supposed to play in society.
Define crime.
You've repeated what Jon Stewart has said. I'm pointing out that Jon Stewart is using a charlatan's trick.
Crime is a reflection of society. And crime is why society needs police. But Jon Stewart conveniently ignores the reason and need. The real issue isn't the police; the real issue is crime.
In the case of George Floyd, the police were responding to a call reporting a crime. The protesters burned Cap Foods because the business reported a crime. The victim of a crime committed by George Floyd was punished because the victim called the police.
In the case of Rayshard Brooks, the police were responding to a call reporting a crime. The protesters burned Wendy's because the business reported a crime. Again, the victim of a crime committed by Rayshard Brooks was punished because the victim called the police.
The cycle that Jon Stewart mentions begins with a crime. George Floyd is being remembered around the world but, somehow, the fact that George Floyd committed a crime has gotten lost. And George Floyd chose to engage in a violent confrontation with police rather than submit to being arrested for committing a crime. The same is true of Rayshard Brooks.
Now, Jon Steward can focus attention on the police and can claim that the actions of police represent some sort of perpetuation of segregation. But that bit of emotively satisfying outrage completely ignores that crime is at the core of the issue. Jon Stewart doesn't want to see the crime because that doesn't fit his narrative. Stewart is using a charlatan's trick to convince everyone else to ignore the crime.
Crime is a reflection of society. Punishing the victims of crime, justified by Jon Stewart's charlatan's trick, is also a reflection of society.
Is crime racist? Does crime perpetuate segregation? Jon Stewart doesn't want to see that side of the issue, so ignores it.
The only ones using a "charlatans trick" are those trying to blame black people for their own plight and wiping their hands of any responsibility by claiming they're all just criminals. The trick is that they act as if we should expect anyone who commits any crime, no matter how small, must accept the fact that police may come and if you don't immediately comply then your life is forfeit. Crime isn't racist, but murdering someone after they are in handcuffs is A FUCKING CRIME but the bigots don't ever want to admit that, they just want to focus on the supposed "criminal" that was somehow deserving of the death sentence they received at the hands of an officer. Not a judge or a jury deciding their fate, but the arresting officer who apparently, in these wacko's estimation, should get to arbitrarily murder anyone they believe is a criminal and is not instantly complying to their demands.
Killing black suspects dis-proportionally is racist. Poverty perpetuates segregation. Prejudice and the ignorant false belief that blacks are somehow inherently criminal or not to be trusted is racist and perpetuates segregation.
The "punishment" is NOT JUSTIFIED! Dishing out the death penalty for any suspect that tries to run is NOT JUSTIFIED no matter how badly you want young black men off "your" streets. The fact that some are SO FUCKING BLIND to this obvious reality is just sad.
There really are billionaires within the black population. Black people have held elected and appointed positions at all levels of government and have demonstrated they can govern on equal terms. Black people participate in all aspects, at all levels, of business, finance, science, education, literature, and art. Black culture has been integrated into American society as have many other cultures.
So, why is Colin Kaepernick a symbol of black people? Why is Al Sharpton a spokesman for black people? Why are criminal suspects treated as victims just because they are black?
Who is really responsible for perpetuating racism?
So, it's okay to threaten police, violently resist arrest, and run away to avoid arrest?
At one point, George Floyd was in the squad car. But Floyd didn't stay there. Floyd made a choice to become violent. And Floyd suffered the consequences of the choice he, alone, made.
It's true Chauvin murdered George Floyd. But Floyd wasn't an innocent victim.
That's like saying "Well I have a black friend" in an effort to prove you're not racist. Saying there are wealthy black Americans isn't saying something we didn't already know, but they're few and far between when you look at the actual numbers. If all was equal and black Americans had the exact same opportunities as any white American, the same generational wealth that is passed along from grandparents to their kids, then you would expect the percent of black billionaires to match the percent of the population they make up. Are they 14% of American billionaires? The fact is there are 15 black billionaires out of the roughly 2200 billionaires in the world, just 0.77%. So throwing out the "There really are billionaires within the black population" as if that's supposed to justify anything is just sad.
Your inability to see the answer is telling. Kaepernick is a talented young black man who was willing to defy the figurative knee on his neck and risked his career to make a statement of solidarity with those many young unarmed black men who had been strangled, shot in the front, shot in the back, back of van rough rides and even shot in their own homes as they wake up out of bed. All he did was respectfully take a knee during the anthem, not hurting or threatening anyone but the disgusting racist underbelly of America rose up at his display and demanded he show them respect and to stop disturbing their mostly black gladiator entertainment.
"Shelby police’s lone conversation with the mass-murder suspect was about food. Earlier in the day, Roof had bought water and chips at a south Charlotte gas station. Now he was hungry. Police bought him food from a nearby Burger King, Ledford said"
So a mass murderer is brought Burger King while a black man who fell asleep at a Wendy's and tried to run got shot in the back. It's true, Roof didn't resist arrest, likely because he knew he would be treated with kid gloves by police, not ruffed up, head slammed in the police car door or beaten before throwing him in with the worst inmates, then railroaded through the justice system regardless of the evidence against him. Some are just so clueless because they don't have centuries of precedent set where their race has been wrongfully arrested and convicted, they have the reverse which is centuries of unmentioned racial privilege that most just take for granted.
African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes
Those who callously turn a blind eye to the systemic racism that virtually anyone with more than half a brain who has looked at the facts agrees exists.
'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'
Again, more filthy justification of a mans slow torturous murder. To say he wasn't an "innocent victim" implies he deserved what he got which is just pure fucking bullshit and make me sick to hear anyone make such an insensitive callous heartless comment.
No trickery here. He was pointing out why: Segregation and discrimination exist in society as is evidenced by the actions of the police.
You excuse police over-reaction by blaming a black man's death on the fact that he resisted arrest. If you back up from this myopic view, you see that George Floyd was resisting arrest over a $20 bill. If you are thinking that this is a stupid thing to resist arrest for, you should also think that this is a stupid thing to kill someone over. The same logic applies with Rayshard Brooks. Why was he killed? Over a DUI arrest?
The fact that the officers thought that in both cases they had the authority and right to take the life of another human being given the specifics of either case speaks loudly to the systemic nature of police brutality in this country. In the case of George Floyd, the officer knew that he was being videoed yet that made no difference, which means he thought that his actions were within the acceptable norms of policing. That should be disturbing to everyone, no matter their political bent. If they are human, they should be appalled. Thankfully, most are.
That political gaslighting only demonstrates that allegations of racism are not about the black population participating in society on an equal basis. And trying to make an argument about racism in the United States by citing global data is deliberately disingenuous.
The only thing that rant proves is that the issue of racism is really about twisted, irrational, partisan logic to score political points. That twisted partisan logic isn't going to solve anything because that twisted logic is a big part of the problem.
Colin Kaepernick is not a symbol of the black population because of his talents or accomplishments. What everyone is overlooking is that Kaepernick has benefited from society because Kaepernick participated, played by the rules, and earned his position as an equal. Kaepernick isn't protesting because he has experienced discrimination. And Kaepernick's protest doesn't serve as a role model for how black people can participate in society as an equal.
Dylann Roof chose the submit to being arrested without violence. Rayshard Brooks chose to violently resist arrest.
In the case of Rayshard Brooks, the police responded to a call that a crime was being committed. And the police procedures worked until the moment that Rayshard Brooks chose to violently resist arrest. How did Brooks get hold of a police taser? Rayshard Brooks made a choice and suffered the consequences of that choice. Brooks wasn't an innocent victim.
Wendy's was the victim of a crime committed by Rayshard Brooks. And Wendy's was punished for reporting the crime because the building was burned by protesters.
The entire incident began with a crime. And everyone is ignoring the important question of how we are supposed to respond to crime.
There are too many black people participating at all levels of society on a equal basis to support that claim. Comparing poor black people to rich white people isn't an appropriate comparison. There are more poor white people than poor black people in the United States. There are more homeless white people than homeless black people in the United States. And there are more white people in prison than there are black people in prison in the United States.
George Floyd and Rashard Brooks both chose to violently resist arrest. And the killing of both was the result of their choice to violently resist arrest. Both chose to escalate the situation into a violent confrontation.
Are statistic available that compares how often white suspects violently resist arrest compared to how often black suspects violently resist arrest? I don't know, I'm asking.
What is being overlooked is that these incidents begin with a crime. Yes, the crimes are often petty. But the degree and type of violence appears to be the result of actions taken by those being arrested.
I get it. Some sarcastic little sacks of shit will always do their job and fling poo at anyone or anything that is actually trying to fix an obviously broken system. They will snarkily bitch about something so they can continue to justify their doing nothing. I feel sad for such small bitter bigots always worrying about losing their right to discriminate against those they feel are inferior.
Read that again and again until it starts to sink in.
I said segregation and discrimination exist in society as is evidenced by the actions of the police. To which you replied:
Bullshit. There are too many stories to the contrary. No one is denying that people commit crimes and that it is the job of the police to arrest them. It is not, however, the job of the police to apprehend any person or suspect at any cost.
I cannot believe that you try to justify 8:46 on George Floyd's neck with, "Well, if he hadn't resisted..."
Actually, Nerm, he discusses relevant issues in the article from his point of view. Not being funny, just discussing.
You are the charlatan Nerm. Your 'president' also.
Really? Look at how Jon Stewart discusses the George Floyd killing. Stewart says we are focusing on the how of police procedure but ignoring the why. And Stewart claims the why is a systemic perpetuation of segregation.
But that doesn't describe the reality. George Floyd wasn't the only black person in the vehicle. And the other black people stood on the sidewalk along with whoever captured the video and watched George Floyd die. And the other black people in the vehicle weren't molested or arrested; they were ignored. If the George Floyd killing is an example of systemic racism then it's a highly selective racism.
Jon Stewart saw what he wanted to see. Stewart only wanted to see what supported his own biased point of view. George Floyd was in control of the situation; he only needed to allow himself to be handcuffed and placed in a squad car to avoid what happened. Floyd chose to escalate the situation into a violent confrontation.
It's a valid question to ask whether or not what police procedure expected George Floyd to do is appropriate. But that also involves a question of why. Why do police procedures require treating suspects in this manner? The problem for people of Stewart's ilk is that answering why police procedures are what they are would require looking at the situation from the cop's point of view. Stewart is so focused on his own point of view that he cannot consider any other point of view.
That statement right there shows that you don't even understand what the problem is, at all.
Another conspiracy theory I suppose.
You are so full of it