Judith Miller Dismantles ; Stewart Declared Winner

I was perusing Twitter late last night when I couldn’t help but notice that the name “Judith Miller” was trending. I knew that the former Times journalist was promoting a new book about her coverage (from over a decade ago) of the build- up to the Iraq War, but I was surprised that she was the talk of the town on social media.

Curious, I clicked on her name and was immediately overwhelmed with comments and headlines like “Jon Stewart destroys Judith Miller over Iraq!”, “Jon Stewart shows Judith Miller what REAL journalism is!”, and “Judith Miller’s still lying on the floor after that beating. Owned!” There were literally thousands of them, and they weren’t just auto-generated from phantom accounts. They came from actual people (some from popular news sites) that had seen Miller’s appearance last night on , and absolutely believed that comedian Jon Stewart had verbally torn her to shreds.

You see, Miller has taken a lot of heat from the American left over the years for the pieces she wrote in the New York Times in 2002 and 2003 that substantiated the belief of intelligence agencies all over the world that Saddam Hussein did in fact have a significant, active WMD program in Iraq. Even though her articles were based on information from a variety of well- placed sources within the intelligence community that had steered her right on multiple big stories in the past, the liberal mantra is that Miller was essentially a stooge for the neocons in the Bush administration. They think she allowed herself to be used as a propaganda tool by the likes of Dick Cheney to take our country to war.

Miller’s stated explanation for why she wrote her new book, The Story: A Reporter’s Journey, is that she wanted to dispel the many myths and popular misconceptions surrounding what our country knew and what it didn’t prior to the Iraq War, and also to explain her reporting on it.

Being that Jon Stewart is an anti-war liberal who has wholeheartedly subscribed to (and perpetuated) several false narratives on Iraq, I envisioned that the interview was probably every bit as rabid as it was being described.

Then, I actually watched it.

Stewart did indeed take an uncomfortably stern tone with Miller, venting his frustrations over Iraq and asking tough, accusatory questions that at times felt more like part of a censure than an interview. Still, they were fair questions, and they were perfectly legitimate.

What surprised me was Miller. She was perfectly composed, and effectively dismantled each and every charge thrown her way. She explained her reporting methodology in great detail, and described her diligence in presenting the best available information to the American public. She also pointed out that there was a strong consensus on Iraq, not just in the intelligence community, but also among our political leaders (including the Clinton Administration) and the media as a whole. She left that interview having validated her journalistic integrity.

Stewart, on the other hand, left with very little.

The notion that Miller had somehow been “destroyed” by Jon Stewart, or that he had “wiped the floor” with her wasn’t just inaccurate… It was pure delusion. It’s just not a conclusion that any objective mind could have possibly reached, even as the same headlines continue to pour out across news websites this morning. Heck, I doubt Stewart himself thinks he ended up on the winning side of that exchange—if there was even a winner to be had.

Yet, because he was aggressive, angry, and venting the frustrations of many liberals, he was somehow deemed to have resoundingly “won” the debate. It apparently didn’t even matter what Miller had to say.

Learn about John Daly’s upcoming novel BLOOD TRADE.

I find that incredibly sad.

Our nation is so depressingly partisan right now that we’ve completely shut ourselves off to reasoned, constructive dialogue. Facts just aren’t important. We’re on the constant lookout for some sort of knock-out punch that bolsters our point of view, and we turn a blind eye to anyone who challenges that point of view.

Instead of placing our faith and smarts in the hands of comedians who use the power of hindsight to deliver stinging one-liners, we should think about investing in our own objectivity, and listening to each other every now and then. We’d most certainly learn something.

Unfortunately, objectivity isn’t nearly as entertaining as grand displays of self-righteousness.

————

If you’re interested in a signed, personalized copy of my novel “From a Dead Sleep” you can order one from my website. It also makes a great gift!

Jon Stewart’s Legacy is Comedy, Not Truth

A little over 20 years ago, a much younger John Daly who had few responsibilities, a 32-inch waist, and a full head of hair used to return to his college dorm room after a long day of classes and routinely flip on some mindless television to unwind.

MTV was typically the channel of choice. It was the era of The Real World, Beavis and Butt-Head, and that infectious, Seattle sound that redefined the Rock genre.

One day, quite possibly between a marathon and a rebroadcast of the latest Aeon Flux episode, I discovered a new show with little fanfare called You Wrote It, You Watch It. The show invited MTV viewers to send in stories that would then be acted out on the show by a comedic group of actors. The skits weren’t very funny, but the same could not be said about the show’s host. He was a short fellow with dark, wavy hair and a pointy nose named Jon Stewart.

I had never heard of Stewart before, but I became an instant fan. There was something refreshingly unique about his dry wit, his playful, self-deprecating delivery, and even the subtle facial expressions he’d make. I found the man to be downright hilarious.

You Wrote It, You Watch It didn’t last very long, but Stewart soon turned back up on the network with his own talk show. It didn’t have much of a budget, and the guests weren’t exactly making anyone’s A-list, but it was funny; really funny! One of the show’s best qualities was the way Stewart mocked MTV and several of its on-air personalities for how seriously they took themselves. I watched the show religiously, and got several of my friends interested in it.

“You know why you like this guy, don’t you?” I remember a friend asking me while we were watching the show together one night. “He’s just like you.”

Though I would never proclaim to have an ounce of Jon Stewart’s comedic talent, I understood what my friend meant. Stewart and I shared the same sense of humor. We were equally immature. We found absurdities in the same societal narratives, and we refused to take ourselves seriously. In a way, he tapped into my inner adolescence and simplistic worldview, and I suppose that’s what I appreciated the most about him. I felt that he spoke to my generation, and at that point in my life, I guess that meant something.

When The Jon Stewart Show left MTV for an hour-long syndicated show, I continued to tune in. I even once sent a fan letter to the show, and was admittedly excited when I received an autographed photo of Stewart in return. It hung on my apartment wall for the duration of my college years, and I actually discovered it in a box in the basement of my house just a few weeks ago.

The ratings for the syndicated show ended up being pretty abysmal for whatever reason, and it was soon cancelled. Though Stewart put on an upbeat face for those last few episodes, it was clear to me that he was hurting over the situation. One of Stewart’s final guests was the late comedian David Brenner. I remember Brenner offering Stewart words of encouragement, saying something like, “There’s one thing you can’t keep down in this business, and that’s real talent. And you have real talent.”

As we all know, Brenner was right. Stewart rebounded by landing the hosting role on ’s The Daily Show (which turned into a 16 year run). I didn’t follow Stewart as closely once he began that stage of his career, though I was happy for his success. I wasn’t much into politics (for which Stewart mocked both political parties equally at the time). I had graduated from college, and was moving on with my life and career.

I did manage to score some tickets for me and my girlfriend (who would become my fiance the next day, and later my wife) to The Daily Show on a trip to New York in 2001, just a few weeks before the 9/11 attacks. It was an interesting experience. Contrary to what we were told earlier by the show’s producer, Stewart didn’t engage the audience before, during, or after the taping. He spent every second of his downtime on stage sifting through papers without actually reading what was written on any of them – almost as if he was going out of his way to avoid having to talk to us. It was kind of weird, but no biggie. Though I had once been a huge fan, I suppose I had outgrown Stewart by then. Years earlier, his acknowledgement would have been a big deal. As an adult who was now living in the real world, it just didn’t seem all that important.

It doesn’t surprise me that Jon Stewart’s biggest fans over the years have been young people, the demographic that Bill O’Reilly once famously referred to, in an interview with Stewart, as “stoned slackers.” His comedy speaks to young people, as it once spoke to me. It’s silly and satirical and built off of caricatures, but Stewart’s quick wit and sharp delivery makes his words sound like wisdom to a generation that hasn’t quite acquired its own wisdom yet.

What has surprised me over his long tenure at The Daily Show is the way he has somehow managed to become a moralistic mouthpiece, in the arena of journalism, for the American Left.

It seems absurd on paper, but in practice, I suppose it really does make sense. By successfully branding himself as a hybrid between a comedian and a political activist, the very left- leaning Stewart (who once described himself, in a moment of candor, as a socialist) has achieved what mainstream journalists and Democratic politicians merely dream of: The ability to promote liberal sensibilities and repeat liberal talking points, in an entertaining way, to a national audience, under the guise of news, without being held accountable for stated falsehoods. And if one can effectively skewer the right in the process, that’s even better.

Now, I’m not saying that Jon Stewart actively promotes himself as a legitimate journalist. He doesn’t. In fact, in reaction to polls indicating that Americans trust him as an actual news source, he has disregarded the notion as a sad statement on society and the media. On that we agree. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that he does indeed present himself as the very type of pundit he often parodies, whenever he recognizes the opportunity and convenience in doing so. The comedy then serves as fall-back position, on the few occasions when he’s drawn into a deeper debate.

It occurred to me earlier this week, after Stewart announced his upcoming departure from The Daily Show, just why so many lefty journalists and politicians began revealing, in somewhat uncomfortable terms, the emotional connection they’ve had with him. They called him a great speaker of truth to power, which is probably the rationale NBC had in mind when they once offered him the hosting chair on Meet the Press. The New York Times even likened Stewart to Edward R. Murrow a few years back. The reality is that Stewart is no such thing, and never has been. Power in this country isn’t nearly as partisan as Stewart has long portrayed it to be, and objectivity is something he’s always lacked.

The left likes Stewart for same reason I liked him back in the mid 90’s. He appeals to their inner-adolescence. They interpret his perfected snark and quick wit as actual wisdom, because it reflects their impulsive, often unexamined worldview. He’s the smart-ass who’s got their back, and that makes them feel like they’re sitting at the cool kids table. It has nothing to do with truth telling.

As a student, I was totally at ease placing this man up on a pedestal. For aging journalists and politicians to do it, and hail him as some kind of crusader for justice… Well, that’s just embarrassing, and it reflects poorly on the state of their professions.

I do wish Mr. Stewart the best of luck in his future endeavors. He’s a truly gifted comedian and deserves the success he has achieved. He’s made me laugh countless times over the years, and for that I’m appreciative.

——

New Year’s Sale: If anyone is interested in a signed, personalized copy of my novel “From a Dead Sleep” for $18, which includes domestic shipping, please email me at [email protected]. It also makes a great gift!

The Identity Crisis of a Liberal Thinker

In promoting his latest book, “The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas”, writer Jonah Goldberg has been making a solid, distinguishing point about how conservatives and liberals view themselves.

As Goldberg told CNN’s Piers Morgan a few weeks ago, we conservatives are largely aware that we are… well, conservative. There’s an inherent cognizance that allows us to self-identify as such.

Conservatives understand that small government, personal responsibility, the right to bear arms, and a pro-life stance are ‘conservative’ issues.

When conservatives watch Sean Hannity on television or listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, we recognize that we’re hearing a conservative viewpoint – not a mainstream consensus. When we turn on , we’re aware of a right-leaning tilt in much of their analysis.

Conservatives understand that when our candidates lose an election, it’s due to either unpopular policies, a failure to persuade voters toward a vision, or qualification concerns.

Because of this self-awareness, conservatives have traditionally been shy about expressing their political views. That’s changed a little bit over the past couple of years, but for the most part, we naturally presume that the people around us are not conservative, so we choose not to burden them with our grandiosity.

Liberals are often a different story.

They typically view themselves as the mainstream of America. They openly speak their mind in the realm of politics because they assume everyone around them pretty much feels the same way as they do.

Liberals watch the national network news and they can’t seem to find any ideological bias in its presentation. They buy into subtly (and not so subtly) placed commentary as conventional wisdom.

Liberals have a hard time understanding criticism of President Obama. To them, he’s dignified and largely infallible so they reject the notion that reasonable people could possibly be unhappy with the job he’s done. Thus, they conclude that racism must be a factor in those people’s grievances and that FOX News and conservative radio are somehow brainwashing the electorate away from reason and common sense.

A prime of example of this identity crisis was put on display last week when Regis Philbin interviewed on CNN. Letterman, whose bitter, left-wing rants and lopsided castigation of prominent Republicans have become trademarks of his program in recent years, made it a point to declare that he was a registered ‘Independent’. He presented this information in order to dismiss the accusation that partisanship plays a role in who he targets for ridicule on his late night show. The defense was laughable, and Letterman wasn’t even trying to make a joke. The vast majority of hyper-partisan, left-wing nut-jobs at MSNBC are most likely also registered as Independents. Does that mean they’re moderate or fair-minded? Of course not. Merely checking ‘Independent’ on a voter registration form doesn’t exonerate someone from being an ideologue. To insist otherwise would be pure buffoonery. All it means is that you’ll probably receive less political junk- mail and fewer campaign calls in the Fall.

Yet, Letterman probably does fancy himself as some nondiscriminatory, middle-of-the-road guy who’s just saying what he thinks everyone else is thinking. He suffers from a liberal identity crisis.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is suffering from the same ailment. Despite providing the country with countless hours of embarrassing fawning over President Obama, and making it his life-mission to excoriateeverything conservative, he routinely insists that he’s a centrist, not a liberal.

Chris Matthews would probably have a defender in Dan Rather, who told Jon Stewart earlier this week that, contrary to popular belief, most journalists are not liberal. Rather took it a step further, going as far as to call the notion of liberal prevalence in the mainstream media “a sham.”

Rather’s assertion is a tough one to defend, considering that study after study has drawn the exact opposite conclusion, including one reported in 2010 by the Washington Examiner. The study revealed that President Obama and the Democratic party received 88 percent of the 2008 campaign contributions given by network news executives, on-air talents, producers, and reporters at ABC, CBS, and NBC. And my guess is that most of those contributors wouldn’t consider themselves to be “liberal” either.

Speaking of Jon Stewart, at least he admits that he’s a liberal. As Newsbusters recently unearthed, he even told back in 2000 that he’s more of a “socialist” than a Democrat. And no, he wasn’t joking. Yet, even in Stewart’s case, he seems to have fooled himself into believing that the left-leaning political tilt that exudes every night from his show on Comedy Central is representative of prevailing wisdom in our country. After all, he and Stephen Colbert organized their “Million Moderate March” in Washington DC less than two years ago as a way to denounce the ideological divide in our country.

Yes, Stewart and Colbert actually presented themselves as moderates.

Now, I’m the first person to admit that Jon Stewart is a comedic genius. I was a fan of his long before he was a household name. But he’s anything but a genius when it comes to how inclusive he believes his views to be. Let’s recap the timeline: In 2000, he was to the left of the Democratic party by his own admission. During the Bush era, he’d clearly swung even further left. Suddenly, in 2010, he was the embodiment of the American moderate?

And let’s look at Stewart’s views on the media. He believes that FOX News is bias. As a conservative, I understand why he says that. I would challenge him on some of the specific allegations he’s made over the years, but the reality is that FOX News leans right in its presentation. It does. I think most conservatives would concur.

What completely substantiates my point about the identity crisis of liberals, however, is that Stewart does NOT see liberal bias in the rest of the news media. Last year on FOX News Sunday, he told Chris Wallace that there is NOT political bias coming from the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. The most he ceded to Wallace was that he thought MSNBC was just now “attempting” to go in the same direction that he believes FOX News has gone in. MSNBC is just attempting to show a political slant?

Keep in mind that Stewart made this observation less than a year ago. He wasn’t speaking of the MSNBC from ten years ago. He was speaking of today’s MSNBC who long let Keith Olbermann spew left-wing, dishonest diatribes on a nightly basis. This is the MSNBC that featured the thrill up Chris Matthews’ leg, in his adoration for President Obama. This is the MSNBC that has given Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Al Sharpton, and Martin Bashir all hosting positions on their own shows. This is the MSNBC who reported on “white people” who were “showing up with guns” at a Tea Party rally in 2009, when in reality the only guy who brought a gun was an African American – a fact the network purposely edited out of the accompanying video.

Yet, Stewart wasn’t quite prepared to accuse MSNBC (or any of the mainstream media outlets, for that matter) of putting forth an ideological slant. To him, they’re more or less down the middle.

It’s all very sad, isn’t it?

People like Letterman, Matthews, Rather, and Stewart are certainly representative of something, but it’s not the American moderate. They’re representative of the left’s inability to recognize who they, themselves, are. And when so many people refuse to self-examine their shared ideological beliefs, it’s tough to make the case that their ideology has any merit at all. Bernie Is On Fire!

[bitsontherun efU1Tg4V]