The Onion and the Daily Show: Unfunny
I write the following in total objectivity. Yes, I am a conservative. Yes, I’m voting for George W. Bush in November. I’m not threatened by Democrats; most of my friends will vote for Flipper, and I’m certainly surrounded by liberals and lefties.
Here’s the deal: I can appreciate political humor—even at Republicans’ expense. But The Onion and “The Daily Show” have really gone downhill. It’s gotten to the point where neither is funny.
Both have made the same, simple mistake: They’re political first, comedic second. I’ve checked The Onion for four weeks and seen Republican-bashing stories, but not once have I seen anything on Kerry. It’s one thing to have a bias; it’s another to be dogmatic. Clearly, the folks at The Onion are committed Bush-haters, but I don’t care about that. I care about the fact that their stuff is flat-out unfunny these days. (It extends beyond their political humor, but that’s for another post.)
However, “The Daily Show” is a more egregious offender. I’m not quite sure why everyone is in love with Jon Stewart, because let me tell ya, ol’ Jon is a one-trick pony. It’s the sardonic, subtly mocking joke—over and over and over again. Jeez man, get a new style and buy me a pillow. But the real shame is that he used to be funny, and he used to dish out jabs at the Right and the Left. Now, it’s about 80% at the Right. The result? Predictable, trite, and boring.
“The Daily Show” has gotten so lame that they invited Gen. Wesley Clark to help “analyze” the first presidential debate. For Christ’s sake, the guy endorsed John Kerry. He sucked in the Democratic primary, and guess what? He sucked on “The Daily Show.” That’s what happens when you place your agenda before your objective: you get liberal, predictable crap.
I think I’ll just stick with Reno 911! for now.
UPDATE 10/8/04: Once again, The Onion’s got two front-page bits on Bush, zero on Kerry. Damn, it feels good to be so right.
October 1st, 2004 at 6:33 am
Ah, but in your “objective” analysis, you neglect to mention that The Daily Show also had Rudy Giuliani (a Bush supporter) on board as debate commentator. But I understand why you left him out. It rather deflates your argument about left-wing “bias” if you include him.
Tom, you should really be more honest here. Let’s face it, you’re an admitted conservative Bush-voter, and when you see comedy aimed at putting down Bush and the conservatives, then it rankles you, and you cry foul. It’s much the same way that I find Rush Limbaugh completely unfunny. But ask many conservatives, and they’ll tell you that Rush blends humor with his political musings. But you see… it’s only really humorous if you’re a conservative. At least have the honesty to admit the reality of the argument.
And why does it matter that you’re surrounded by liberals where you live? It’s not live you specifically chose Evanston for that reason, so what possible implication does it have on what you are talking about? We all live around people who we may not agree with. You’re not special in that regard.
I happen to find The Daily Show and The Onion hilarious. But then again, I’m a liberal, and that’s my bias. At least I can admit it.
Later.
October 1st, 2004 at 9:30 am
Let’s be realistic here people: while Jon Stewart welcomed everything General Clark had to say, he blasted Rudy Giuliani. The interview was stilted and painful to watch. Why doesn’t Stewart simply hang a sign that says “John Kerry for President”?
October 1st, 2004 at 10:14 am
I take it you have this same ire for FOX News, or NRO? What about Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?
It’s one thing to admit your non-objectivity and bias, and say that you don’t like someone (or their show) because their view differ from yours. I admit it wholeheartedly.
It’s quite another thing to claim to be objective, and then bash someone (or their show) because they seem to support a guy you don’t like.
So what if Jon Stewart is rooting for John Kerry, and it shows? So what? Sean Hannity does it every night on FOX News - which, by the way, claims to be “fair & balanced”. The Daily Show makes no such claims - and Rush Limbaugh does it every day on the radio.
If you want to express your opinion about Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, fine. But if you’re wanting Jon Stewart and The Daily Show - a news *comedy* show, just like The Onion is a comedic newspaper - to not express *their* opinions, that is not fine.
The days of conservatives blasting liberals for voicing their opinions and, yes, having a liberal bias, are over. There’s plenty of conservative talking point outlets to be had. Get over it.
October 1st, 2004 at 10:36 am
Matt,
Oh how ye assume too much.
A couple of points; you admit you’re biased, and you admit you love The Onion and The Daily Show. Therefore, by the transitive property, The Onion and The Daily Show are biased.
But I’m not the same as you. I can appreciate *balanced* political humor. As a very small example, I thought that the JibJab video that went around the Internet was very funny, and it tooks jabs at both Bush and Kerry.
As to your *assumption* that I think Rush Limbaugh is funny–I don’t. Well, not particularly. Michael Savage? I don’t listen to him. In fact, where have I ever said that I think a particular conservative comedian (that’s almost an oxymoron) is funny? I haven’t.
You’re assuming too much with no proof.
October 1st, 2004 at 11:40 am
I couldn’t care less whether or not you think Rush or Michael Savage are funny. Once again, you are making a diversionary argument.
What is most telling of your innate conservative bias is your *lack of criticsm* for those individuals. You pretend to be objective and balanced, but your attacks are only ever directed at the left.
It will take a lot of criticsm leveled at the Right in order for you to actually claim to be “balanced”, without the rest of us falling over laughing.
October 1st, 2004 at 12:05 pm
Diversionary argument? Time for Debate 101.
A. I do not think The Onion or The Daily Show are funny.
B. I do not think Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage are funny.
C. I do not think any of the above are funny for the same reason: they are one-sided.
D. I never claimed to be “objective” in my opinions–that is a paradox. I claimed to desire “objectivity” in humor.
Don’t fall over laughing; you’ll have to process the claims form.
October 1st, 2004 at 1:34 pm
From the start of this post:
“I write the following in total objectivity.”
From your most recent comment for this post:
“D. I never claimed to be “objective” in my opinions–that is a paradox. I claimed to desire “objectivity” in humor.”
Is this something like: It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is? :-)
By the way, humor is, in many way, a non-objective art form. It can be regional, as well as cultural and national. What may be funny to people in the northeast U.S. may not be funny to those in the deep south. What may fly as an incredible joke in London, may not play in Peoria. So, much of the time - but not all - humor is subjective. And that’s fine.
“B. I do not think Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage are funny.
C. I do not think any of the above are funny for the same reason: they are one-sided.”
This is good to hear. However, the point I was making in an earlier comment is that we never hear this from you unless it is a situation like the one we’re in now. How many times have you posted about your dislike of liberal bias and liberal media, etc.? And now how many times have you posted about your supposed dislike for right-wing bias, etc.? I’ve been reading your site for a year or more, and haven’t seen it yet.
It’s your jotsheet, so it’s obviously yours to do with as you please. Just don’t pretend to be “balanced” and “objective” when expressing your opinions, when the history of opinions on this website show quite a different story.
Debate 101, indeed.
October 1st, 2004 at 2:07 pm
My comment about objectivity was completely consistent. I’m conservative, and my opinions are not objective. By their very nature, opinions are subjective.
What I would like in humor, however, is *balance*. Perhaps this is a better word than objectivity.
You ask why I don’t post about right-wing bias. The problem is that there’s not much of it. You’ve got Fox News, a Republican cheerleader, and you’ve got talk radio. Then you’ve got CNN and the networks, which are decidedly liberal, yet they *pretend* not to be. Which is worse: the wolf, or the wolf in sheep’s clothing?
The media in this country are liberal. Hollywood is liberal. Musicians are liberal. When we see the tide shift and the mouthpieces of our society are overwhelmingly conservative, then maybe you’ll hear from me about “conservative bias.” Until then, I’m sure as heck not going to complain about something that doesn’t exist.
October 14th, 2004 at 4:05 pm
I’m with you, Tom. I think Jon Stewart is funny, but recently I’ve been tracking some pretty egregious editing tricks the Daily Show has been pulling to shill for Kerry.
i wrote about it here:
http://bluemag.com/columns/publishers_notes/index.html#001344
September 29th, 2005 at 3:20 am
I am with Matt. The Daily Show and The Onion are funny, but not because they bash Republicans or Democrats, its because they use satire and sarcasm to criticize society. At this point in time we have a Republican for President and Republicans are the majority in the House and Senate. These shows/papers are bashing the administration/establishment. They might lean more to the right when there is a Democrat in office purely for the controversy. And perhaps the fact that so many things are “bashing” Bush should open your eyes to the fact that his leadership is not the best… and that a lot of people in America are extremely unhappy with him.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:07 am
First, I’m not a conservative or a republican and I’m not a democrat or liberal either. Nor am I moderate. I prefer to stay out of the political picture and watch from afar. I don’t even vote. I don’t like Bush at all, and I don’t like Clinton at all. But I do agree that The Daily show is too liberal. I ‘ve never even heard of The Onion however. Just a few minutes ago I watched a clip of the Daily Show where they were making fun of a man who wouldn’t sell “morning after” pills. They accused him of trying to control women and nearly outright said that women had the right to murder babies. Now, the Daily Show is hosted by a liberal Jew. So why is it okay for a Jewish butcher to refuse to sell pork, but it is NOT okay for a Christian pharmacist to refuse to sell “morning after pills”?! Where is the justice in that?! And in a week-long special where they were trying to make creationism look wrong they attributed the Adam and Eve “myth” to Christianity, but it was the JEWS that created the Adam and Eve story! It was in the freakin’ Torah thousands of years before the Bible came along! I used to watch the Daily Show all the time, but after repeatedly having liberal views shoved in my face as “the right way” I no longer watch it. So I totally agree that they have alienated viewers who don’t share their view by putting the politics first and the funny last. It annoys me to no end when liberals think that EVERYONE shares THEIR veiws. I don’t like conservatives either but at least they KNOW that there are people who hate them. I think I’ll stick with Family Guy for my comedy.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
watch and learn:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
February 14th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I don’t think Jon Stewart or CNN have a pre-determined liberal bias…I think reality has the liberal bias…Conservative thought and action is just so much easier to pick on and/or criticize … I think this is because, as “conservatives”, they pre-define themselves as out of step with the times… Their political philosophy is one that tries to preserve ideas and ideals that, too many, seem out dated and it thusly makes conservatives appear funnier and behind the times in looks and behavior… All one has to do to see this is turn on some of the tv programming in the red states and it’s like you’re back in the 1950’s…It’s just so much more easier to make fun of…That’s all I have to say…