The Critic who Can't Be Criticized

We have come a long way from Walter Cronkite.

“Uncle Walter,” as he was affectionately known as, was America’s most trusted newsman, and in the turmoil of great societal change, Cronkite seemed to be a steady rock. Of course, Americans at the time had only three major broadcast networks to choose from; today, we have limitless choices thanks to the internet and satellite television and radio.

It should not come as a complete surprise, therefore, that many Americans have moved away from traditional sources of news and have turned against politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. The main beneficiaries in the last few years have been a standup comedian and a shock jock radio host who have become more politically minded, less afraid to rock the boat by making controversial statements, and who are more inclined to have their finger on the pulse of a sector of a deeply divided American discourse.

It is no coincidence, then, that Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck each held rallies on the National Mall last year that drew over 200,000 people. Stewart’s Daily Show tenure has seen him expose the hypocrisy of both politicians and the media, delve through dense government documents and meandering testimonies on Capitol Hill to create context and shine a light on falsehoods, and give young people an outlet in which to express their frustration with business as usual. The fact that Stewart’s show is a comedy show has not deterred many Americans from naming him as one of the legitimate journalists they most admire. Stewart may have been at his sharpest in exposing the Bush Administration for its many sins, but he has thrived in the age of Obama: since January 2009, he has interviewed the President, the First Lady, the Vice President, six of the President’s Cabinet members, and a few of the President’s key advisors.

Glenn Beck may edge towards some comedy on his nationally syndicated radio show, but on his main outlet, Glenn Beck on Fox News Channel, the events taking place under Obama’s reign are no laughing matter. Armed with a chalkboard, a red phone, and the usual array of Fox graphics, Beck has turned himself into a cross between an Old Testament prophet and Howard Beale of Network, and conservative viewers have flocked to him. Despite airing in a timeslot when most people are still in traffic, Beck has the one of the three highest rated news programs on cable. His only rivals are Bill O’Reilly and the aforementioned Stewart.

There is something else, aside from the high cable ratings, extremely devoted fans, and rallies on the National Mall, that tie Stewart and Beck together. Both make loud proclamations and call out others for their sins, but at the same time, strive to inoculate themselves from criticism. Stewart and Beck take different routes to achieve the same goal, and the method that Stewart uses works as a double criticism: the original disparagement is followed by a response from the target that acts as a second condemnation of the target. Beck is not quite as successful in using his defense as a second attack.

Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show in 1999, and the show became almost completely political during the 2000 election, but it was not until an appearance on CNN’s Crossfire on October 15, 2004 that Stewart threatened to become a serious commentator and debuted what some writers have called the “clown nose” defense.

On Crossfire, Stewart ripped into hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being “partisan hacks”, which “[helped] the politicians and the corporations” at the expense of the people. Stewart argued that while shows such as Crossfire were perhaps originally intended to keep politicians honest, the shows became so cliché and predictable that they did more harm than good, becoming “part of [the politicians and corporations’] strategies”. Carlson countered by reading a list of softball questions that Stewart had asked John Kerry in a recent Daily Show appearance, but Stewart stated that it was not his responsibility, as a comedian, to hold Kerry’s feet to the fire. “I didn’t realize – and maybe this explains quite a bit – that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity”.

While the Crossfire hosts explained that they invited Stewart on to promote his book, Stewart instead took the opportunity “to confront you” because the media was not doing its job, yet he also stated, “If your idea of confronting me is that I don’t ask hard-hitting enough news questions, then we’re in bad shape”. Stewart stated that Crossfire was pure theater and that Begala’s comparison of Crossfire to a legitimate debate was like saying “pro wrestling was a show about athletic competition”. Yet again, when Carlson challenged Stewart about Stewart’s apparent hypocrisy in calling them partisan hacks, Stewart retreated to familiar comedic territory: “The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls”. Yet even after that, he again turned into a serious commentator, telling Carlson and Begala, “You have a responsibility to the public discourse and you’ve failed miserably”.

This marked the first appearance of Stewart’s “clown nose” defense:

Say he's not funny; he tells you he's a concerned citizen. Try to engage him on the point, he tells you he's a comedian; […] Of course he's able to have sincere positions. I just wish he would defend them. "We're a comedy show!" is, in that context, a copout. He's trying to have it both ways.

The Crossfire appearance would not be the last time that Stewart engaged in a very public debate in which he employed this defense.

In 2010, Stewart held his Rally to Restore Sanity, which drew over 215,000 people to the National Mall. Despite never shading his political views on his program, he stressed that this rally was not in support of a partisan side, and launched into an impassioned speech urging politicians and media personalities to be more civil and not to dehumanize each other. It was clear that Stewart was speaking from the heart without a hint of irony or sardonic humor, but when he criticized by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow for his speech, he again used comedy as an attempt to deflect the criticism. He filmed a black and white vignette featuring himself as a boxer getting pummeled in slow motion to play after each clip of criticism before switching back to a serious address of the criticism: "Contrary to what people may believe, I do believe the rally was about something, just not what they wanted it to be about or what they think it was about."

That mixture of the serious and the unserious is part of Stewart’s playbook, but the fact that he actually addressed their criticism in a serious manner suggested, to the show’s viewers, that Stewart had evolved in his views and recognized his role in the political discourse. Unfortunately, an interview of Stewart by Rachel Maddow a week later showed that Stewart still resorted to the “clown nose” defense when pressed on his responsibilities.

Stewart labeled his program as satire and said, "I feel more of a kinship to Jerry Seinfeld than I do to […] CNN or NBC in that he is able to articulate an intangible” in a way that people who had previous grasped at certain straws could put things together." Maddow countered: “But what I know of your process] seems very similar to the way that I put my show together”. Stewart responded, “We have to, because we’re parodying a news organization […] but the process the material goes through is not a news process”. Maddow pressed him, saying that “a lot of people who watch your show and who watch cable news think of what we do as not that different,” regardless of how they come to such an end. Stewart, though, identified himself as “on solid ground with the footsteps of my ancestors” such as the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher – comedians “who, with political and social concepts, criticizes them from a haughty yet ultimately feckless perch”. Stewart compared himself to Roger Ebert, who critiques movies but does not make movies of his own. Stewart has defended his approach in the past by saying, “I haven’t moved out of the comedian’s box into the news box; the news box is moving towards me”. That, of course, has fueled much of his denigration of the news business.

Stewart said in the Maddow interview that his rally was an attempt to “deflate a bubble,” and he stressed that he had a chance to “get in the game” with the rally but did not, instead preferring to “stay on the sidelines;” this he contrasted with the news business, who he felt was “on the field”. However, a man who has met with much of the Obama Administration on the air and the Secretary of the Treasury privately is not somewhat without skin in the game. Also, it is worth noting that the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher, among other “ancestors,” did not take on the outward appearance of a news show when delivering commentary on the news. The closest ancestor to Stewart is the “Weekend Update” portion of Saturday Night Live, but unlike SNL, one-third of Stewart’s nightly program consists of an interview with (usually) a newsmaker or political figure. Stewart may prod lightly in tone depending on who is on the show (as Carlson pointed out about Stewart’s interview with John Kerry), but the interviews are quite substantive, and both President Obama and CNBC host Jim Cramer have been on the receiving end of a tough Stewart interview; indeed, Obama’s press secretary noted that “Jon Stewart is about as good an interviewer as there is in the public domain right now”. Stewart may think of himself as only a comedian, but the format of his show renders it impossible for him to keep himself “out of the game.” Stewart’s comparison to Roger Ebert is flawed as well; a more accurate analogy would be if “Ebert reviewed films by directing video commentaries with a $100 million budget and plenty of” special effects. With all of this in mind, it is disingenuous for Stewart to use the “clown nose” defense.

Despite his shock jock background, Glenn Beck does not consider himself a comedian, so he does not use the “clown nose” defense. The onus of Beck’s on-screen personality is one of a history teacher who educates his audience about the creeping forces of socialism that have been ignored recently but have been attempted in the past. Somewhat ironically, Beck seeks to counter criticism of his history lessons and his overall message through the ignorance defense.

The best examples of Beck’s ignorance defense revolve around his Rally to Restore Honor, which took place on August 28 at the Lincoln Memorial. Even casual students of history could probably inform you that Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech took place at the Lincoln Memorial on an August 28 years before Beck became politically active (1963, the same year Beck was born). Yet Beck, who admits that he is “a college dropout [and] a self-educated guy”, did not realize the trouble:

We picked August 28th; it was open in my schedule, it was open in the park. […] When I announced it, the New York Times blogged immediately that this was MLK Day, and I immediately said, ‘Oh my gosh!’ [….] We would have never made the connection to Martin Luther King if everyone else hadn’t made the connection to Martin Luther King.

Beck then pivoted to a defense of his rally being on the same spot because he was looking to bring the same solutions to America today that he thought Dr. King was attempting to do in the 1960s:

Now what everyone’s bringing up Martin Luther King: what was his solution to the civil rights? Content of character; to be God-driven honorable people of character; well, that’s a universal answer! So does it have anything to do with his speech? No, but is his speech right? Yes: for not just civil rights, but all rights of mankind.

Beck attempted to illuminate the point by inviting Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, to speak at his rally, and his rally was indeed nonpolitical, urging a return of religious values to American life. Beck convinced himself that this was in line with Dr. King’s thinking, but when he was confronted about Dr. King’s full solution to the civil rights issue on a radio program the day of the rally, Beck again pleaded ignorance:

MADISON: You do not believe President Obama is a racist? […]
BECK: I misunderstood — this I just said the other day — I misunderstood his philosophy and his theology, which is liberation theology.
MADISON: Which was King’s philosophy. Big time.
BECK: Didn’t know that. I’ll talk to Alveda today about it.
MADISON: Oh, talk to his father. You know who you should talk to? Talk to Walter Fauntroy, who grew up with King. That was his philosophy — it was the theological philosophy of social justice.
BECK: Right. I am not a fan of social justice.
MADISON: That’s where we really part. I am a big fan of social justice. […] Maybe we have different definitions of social justice.

The problem with Beck is that he makes grand pronouncements about history without knowing the full scope of history, and he when he is confronted on that fact, he pleads ignorance. In a sense, Beck is a tutor who has elevated himself to the level of professor.

Take a minute for this mental exercise. In some states, fourth graders are evaluated by state governments on their proficiency in American history. Imagine for a second that, during the school year, fourth graders were not taught by accredited adults teaching from state approved textbooks, but they were instead taught by an eighth grader. The eighth grader may be advanced, self-taught, and hungry for knowledge, but the eighth grader is not an adult recognized by the state as proficient enough to teach elementary school. Still, your fourth grade history final hedges upon the knowledge you absorbed from that self-taught eighth grader.

That is Glenn Beck. That is why he is able to successfully plead ignorance when challenged, although unlike Stewart, his defense does not have the added benefit of acting as a second attack on his target. Yet Beck’s defense is doubly effective in regards to his target audience, because despite his enormous financial success, his defense is rooted in anti-elitism. He is able to say, through his ignorance, that he is “one of you.”

Stewart and Beck’s strategy has had varying degrees of success over the years in blunting the criticism of others in the future. Beck has been less successful, as a boycott has robbed his television show of almost all of his sponsors and a liberal website, Media Matters, has been devoted almost exclusively to recording outrageous statements made by Beck and other conservative broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh. Stewart managed to keep himself isolated from major criticism through his “clown nose” strategy for years, but a number of factors have made his defense less effective. The rest of the mainstream media has effusively exalted Stewart over the last three to four years, and several polls showing that a significant portion of young people get their news primarily from Stewart and his protégé, Stephen Colbert, have made his stature hard to deny. The change from a Republican establishment more indebted to the Christian conservative movement and seniors to a Democratic majority of government led by the first African-American president has also made Stewart more important by proxy; as mentioned previously, Democrats looking to turn out younger viewers have to make the obligatory pilgrimage to Stewart’s program. Stewart’s rally, regardless of his intentions, was also a key moment in shattering his defenses against criticism.

Despite this, Beck and Stewart’s attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism have been very successful in rallying their supporters around them and increasing the intensity of that support. Beck, in particular, has cultivated a bunker mentality in which criticism of him often feels gratuitous. Stewart’s defense strategy has made his supporters question the mainstream media even more, which makes them more likely to rally around Stewart. His ratings have soared in the last few years, and, combined with the repeat airings on Comedy Central, Stewart’s numbers have become competitive with Jay Leno’s and David Letterman’s.

Beyond Stewart and Beck, however, is the possibility that their attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism may become more widespread. The shift from an objectivity-based paradigm guided by broadcast television and radio to a new frontier based upon on the anonymity of the internet and Fox News’ attempt to become a visually stimulating newspaper, along with the objective news’ shift into “the comedy box”, may serve as an inspiration for other news personalities to shield themselves from the invective of all opponents without attempting to respond to more rational criticisms. It may not be completely successful from a macro perspective, but as Stewart and Beck have shown, it can generate more intensity from previous supporters and inspire passive independents to tune in to see what the all the fuss is about.

Today we find ourselves in a media climate where personalities do not engage in dialogue but talk through each other. Tomorrow, we may find ourselves in a media climate where our flaws become seen as virtues and all criticism is placed together. Ignoring all criticism in that case will be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.