Jon Stewart addressed head-on the specter of censorship looming over U.S. late night talk shows on Thursday with an over-the-top portrayal of a politically obsequious television host under authoritarian rule.
Stewart hosted the Comedy Central program one day after ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show indefinitely following comments he made about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and two months after CBS said it would cancel the show hosted by one of President Donald Trump’s fiercest critics on TV, Stephen Colbert.
The show opened with a voiceover promising adherence to the party line.
“We have another fun, hilarious administration-compliant show,” it said.
Stewart lavished praise on the president and satirized his criticism of large cities and his deployment of the National Guard to fight their crime.
“Coming to you tonight from the real (expletive), the crime ridden cesspool that is New York City. It is a tremendous disaster like no one’s ever seen before. Someone’s National Guard should invade this place, am I right?” Stewart said.
“The Daily Show” set was refashioned with decorative gold engravings, in a parody of gold accents Trump has added to the fireplace, doorway arches, walls and other areas of the Oval Office.
Stewart fidgeted nervously as though he was worried about speaking the correct talking points. When the audience members reacted with an “awww” he whispered: “What are you doing? Shut up. You’re going to (expletive) blow this for us.”
He took on a more stilted tone when he started describing Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom, calling the president “our great father.”
“Gaze upon him. With a gait even more majestic than that of the royal horses that prance before him,” he said.
Stewart’s featured guest was due to be Maria Ressa, the journalist and author of “How to Stand Up to a Dictator.” Ressa also shared the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize for her fight for freedom of expression in her home country of the Philippines.
No, no more celebrity politicians
Name someone better.
No, seriously. Name someone who can:
Get elected
Do the job better than Jon Stewart.
When you can do that, you won't have to convince me to support them; I'll already be on board.
Until you can name someone that can meet that criteria...
What does the "get elected" criteria mean? Anyone who runs can "get elected", right? Am I wrong? I don't know if there's any disqualifying factors that I'm not aware of other than like, convictions or something (not that that bothers the current dictator)
So, no actual name springs to mind?
I was being genuine about not understanding the criteria, sorry - I can't point to a name if I'm unclear on the criteria :/
But yeah, how about Bernie Sanders? AOC?
Bernie is too damn old. He's not a viable candidate anymore.
AOC's policies are good, but she has the same problem that Hillary had: the GOP has been running against her for 2-3 election cycles now. Her nomination will bring more opposition than support.
Oh right fair enough 🤷♂️
are those two failures by criteria 1? Is that what criteria 1 meant?
No, those are both failures of criteria 2. Both Bernie and AOC are electable. But Stewart can do the job better than either of them.
You could potentially do the job better than Stewart, if you really wanted it. But you aren't electable.
No, those are both failures of criteria 2. Both Bernie and AOC are electable. But Stewart can do the job better than either of them.
You could potentially do the job better than Stewart, if you really wanted it. But you aren't electable. Come back to me when a significant percentage of the voting population knows your name, and we can further explore your capacity to do the job.
..what? Where did I say I wanted to do the job? I'm not sure I've done anything to warrant the snarky replies honestly mate.
Also, wait, Jon Stewart can do the job of being president better than two career politicians? I'm not sure I understand why that would be the case?
You didn't. I was trying to provide you with an understanding of a criteria 1 failure. Should you choose to run, you would collect fewer votes than Vermin Supreme, who is himself unelectable.
Name an electable candidate who could actually do the job better than Stewart. Show me someone better. If you can't name someone better, don't drag down the best candidate you know.
Ah okay I see, criteria 1 is about likeability and public awareness?
to be totally fair, I did name two candidates 😂 how about Mamdani? I like Omar's Green New Deal work and her anti-ICE stance is good. Tlaib's advocacy for the working class is nice too.
Easily. Stewart can exert far more political pressure on either the left or the right than AOC or Bernie.
Is the amount of political pressure you can apply, what the job entails? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I had the perception that a president had to do more than just apply pressure - I thought there was something more to the job, that would require a better understanding of politics and the consequences of policy, a clear and consistent viewpoint, the ability to pick an effective cabinet, that kind of thing.
Yes.
Not really, no.
Understanding is important, but understanding the consequences of policy is meaningless if you can't actually enact policy. Enacting it requires the ability to apply political pressure.
Your viewpoint is meaningless if you are powerless to enact it, which requires the ability to apply political pressure.
Sure. Picking a cabinet requires the advice and consent of the Senate, which means your political pressure comes into play.
Regardless, Stewart's understanding of politics and policy consequences is as good or better than AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, et al, and his viewpoint is certainly clear and consistent. Your criticism doesn't seem relevant here.
Oh, right. Okay. Well, personally I don't think Stewart's understanding of politics and policy consequences is as good or better than those named politicians, but I guess we just disagree. More celebrity politicians I guess 👍 Maybe we'll get Dwayne Johnson in next!
You indicated here that you were unqualified to make such a claim. You said you didn't even know the guy. You claimed ignorance. (You also said that your opinion was based solely on the "track record" of previous celebrities. This was a "hasty generalization" fallacy, also known as "stereotyping".)
Since your "ignorance" comment, though, it seems you have developed a definite position on Stewart's policy competency. What have you learned in the past two days that justifies this new opinion?
I'm unqualified to claim that I don't think he has a better understanding of politics than Bernie Sanders? 😂
Based on your previous claim of ignorance and your acknowledged reliance on stereotypes, that is correct: you have indicated you are not qualified to make a meaningful claim regarding Stewart's policy competency.
Okay bud, you've had a bit of a shitty attitude for this entire interaction but this is very funny. I'm happy for you as a Stewart super fan - enjoy your day 🫡