The infallible Jon Stewart
1. The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, who was recently named in a national poll as the most trusted newsman in the world since the death of Walter Cronkite. I think Stewart is a terrific comedian. He did a bang-up job hosting the Academy Awards and I watch The Daily Show once or twice a week and always get a big kick out it. But comparing him to Walter Cronkite is like comparing Pat Paulsen to Abraham Lincoln (younger readers please consult Wikipedia to find out who Pat Paulsen was). My problem with The Daily Show is that it frequently rides the fence on what it wants to be: when it takes a superior, patronizing attitude about an issue of morality or professional ethics, it’s a hard-hitting news show. But when it’s found to have reported on something in error or has a feature that borders on the absurd – well, tee-hee – then it’s just a silly ol’ comedy show, folks. And it doesn’t even pretend to be objective, proudly wearing its leftist skew on its shoulder and pointedly mocking everything to the right of center. Jon Stewart is clearly a very intelligent and charming guy with a miraculous comedy mind, but he ain’t no Walter Cronkite.
The critically-acclaimed Stephanie Fredricks in the “Passionella” sequence of “The Apple Tree”.
2. The L.A. Weekly, which published a lukewarm review of The Apple Tree praising the performance of Stephanie Fredricks, but finding fault with some of the direction. I personally never give much of a rat’s ass what a reviewer has to say (positive or negative) and The Apple Tree isn’t the usual L.A. Weekly angst-ridden esoteric fare anyway, but I do take a strong exception to what the rag opined. It’s not that they criticized the direction because, God knows, those guys need to be taken down a few pegs. But I could kill them for singling out Stephanie Fredricks, one of the biggest prima donnas that I have ever encountered (there is room for exactly one massive ego in that dressing toom, and I was there first). Now that this insufferable diva have a positive review from the renowned critic Mayank Keshaviah (if that really is the dude’s name) inside her swollen head, there will be no living with her. I must admit though, the general tone of the review caught me off guard, since the performance that he saw was enthusiastically enjoyed by the audience and my operatives (some of whom are Vulcans) reported that Mr. Keshaviah appeared to be having a ball. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, and I don’t think a great review from the Weekly would have made much difference to us anyway since the show is almost sold out for every remaining performance. But his singling out my nemesis Ms. Fredricks means that the last three weeks of the run will be a narcissism-drenched hell from which I may not survive.
The sensitive Jason Fogelson.
3. My old college buddy Jason Fogelson. I was feeling rather contemplative yesterday, so instead of filling up these pages with the usual aggressive character assassination that you’ve come to love me for, I wrote a much more thoughtful listing that provided a rare display of my fragile, vulnerable side to the world. Mr. Fogelson’s response to my tender exhibition of my naked Id was to force me against the cyber wall and anally rape my delicate psyche, writing “This list has gotten way too soft and runny. Buck it up, Jonny! Where’s that crusty exterior? I don’t want to see your chewy center.” My center has only gotten chewy from decades of vermin like you gnawing away at it, Fogelson. I’m sorry that my tortured musings don’t entertain the masses like your little car review blog does. If my exterior is crusty, it’s because I have to rub elbows with dirty, soulless gnats who want nothing more than to crush my poetic soul. But I shall persevere, and my thoughtful prose will see my name carved into the tablet of fame long after your swollen carcass has decayed back into the feces-ridden dirt from whence it sprang. How do you like me NOW?
Mark Buehrle pitched a perfect game, but could it have been MORE perfect?
4. Chicago White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle who pitched a perfect game against the Tampa Bay Rays yesterday, meaning that he successfully retired all 27 Rays batters in the contest without allowing a single player to reach first base. I have nothing against Buehrle, especially since he accomplished his feat against a team with one of the most retarded names in baseball (they used to have the very cool nickname Devil Rays, but changed it because of the protests of some Jesus Freaks who didn’t want the word “devil” in their team’s name), but it does annoy me because it reminded me of my grudge against the word “perfect”. The preamble to the US Constitution states “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union….” The definition of perfect is “conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type,” meaning that something is either perfect or it ain’t. So explain to me, dear reader, how the fuck something can be more perfect? If the game yesterday had gone into extra innings and Buehrle had retired all 30 batters, would he be credited with a more perfect games? It’s ridiculous. The preamble needs to be rewritten immediately to take that moronic statement out. It could only make our system of government more perfect.
5. Unknown Facebook friends. I have developed a fairly lax policy on accepting Facebook friends, especially since a number of mine are friends of friends who wanted to read my Enemies List. So I’ll usually let in anybody with a loose connection to me and if the threads are too loose or if they don’t make the cut on the Jason Fogelson Obnoxiousness Scale (i.e., if they are more obnoxious than Fogelson, which is not easy to accomplish), I’ll hide them immediately after befriending them. But every once in a while I’ll forget to hit the Hide button, so occasionally a post comes up on my newsfeed from someone who I have no idea who they are. Then, the wheels start turning in my head: Should I know who is person is? Do I want to know them? Did I not hide them because I think they’re out to get me and I wanted to keep an eye on them? Since I was almost certainly drunk out of my mind when I accepted their friend request, I have no idea what the thought process was behind my accepting them and not hiding them, but it always freaks me out a little when a post pops up from someone I can’t recall. Of course, I find the posts from the people I do know just as disturbing, so maybe it’s a moot point.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey, you can feel however you wish about Jon Stewart, but just FYI: The Daily Show has never claimed itself to be a “hard-hitting news show,” nor has Jon himself ever done anything but poo-poo the notion that he’s this generation’s Walter Cronkite, so why he’s an enemy on those points, I don’t get. Maybe certain hyperbolic fans who have said these things should be the enemies. And frankly, he’s not all that “left of center,” but even if he were, who cares? Only those who are smug about the correctness of being “right of center,” I’d guess. Yeah I know he’s taken those losers Tucker Carlson and Jim Cramer to task, and given Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity what for, but he’s been poking plenty of fun at Obama’s administration, and he’s always invited conservative guests from Newt Gingrich to John Ashcroft on (and treated them with great civility whether he agrees with them or not).
I think unknown Facebook friends should be on everyone’s enemies list, however.
“The Daily Show” constantly sends out mixed signals of its legitimacy as a news show. You’re absolutely right – Stewart takes the consistent (and safe) point of view that it’s just a comedy show. But then he regularly conducts serious interviews with newsmakers and politicians that are frequently as hard-hitting as anything Mike Wallace or Sam Donaldson ever did (I remember a particularly abrasive interview he conducted with Fox News financial analyst Jim Cramer that could have been on “Meet The Press”). The show is also relentless in calling out Fox’s lapses in journalistic integrity; which is laudable, but it also holds Comedy Central to those same standards of reporting ethics. “The Daily Show” is a news program with a point of view about what it is reporting that presents its stories in a humorous fashion, but it is reporting on real stories that affect people’s lives. It’s a lot of fun, but it also wields a lot of power because as it skews its stories to present them in a humorous light, it has the ability to subtly affect opinions. I’m not saying the show is wrong or evil – I like it very much. But when I watch it, I do have to remind myself that I am not getting an objective point of view and that I shouldn’t accept what is being reported at face value.
I think your statement “he’s not all that ‘left of center,’ but even if he were, who cares?” says a lot. You make a valid point – I don’t particularly care that he’s left of center any more than the people who watch Fox News care that they’re significantly right of center. But I disagree that there isn’t a slant to the left on the show. They are mildly critical of the Obama administration, but they were remorseless about the Bush administration – depicting Dick Cheney as the devil incarnate and Bush as a blithering idiot. It’s an opinion that I don’t altogether disagree with; but it’s important to remember that it is an opinion that is being broadcast to us. You are absolutely right that Stewart (to his credit) frequently invites conservative guests on the air, but he almost always conducts his interviews from a Democratic perspective and rarely allows them to extend their point of view without balancing what’s being said with his own opinions. He’s not necessarily wrong to do that; but it speaks volumes about his trustworthiness as a newsman, which was the whole point of the listing.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of people do use “The Daily Show” as their primary means of getting the news, which makes it difficult to separate the opinion from an objective presentation of what’s going on. I say watch “The Daily Show” – laugh at it, learn from it, and enjoy it. But be careful about trusting it.