In the last few weeks, it has become fashionable by political bloggers to scrutinize Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show.” The anomaly is, it seems to be, in every case, by intelligent chaps on the mid-to-mid-far left. Dissent, an online political magazine of “independent-minded radicals,” launched a recent article (http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=274), which exemplifies what people are alleging against Stewart.

In every case it seems to be in reference to Stewart’s supposed moderation. Steven Benen of the Washington Monthly sums up the concern, saying, “For what it’s worth, my only concern here (regarding the Rally to Restore Sanity) is one that I often hear in the media: the notion that the left and right are equally crazy, and the fringes are driving their respective parties’ agendas. That strikes me as a mistaken assumption.

“Republicans really have moved sharply to the far right and allowed extremists to call the shots, while Truthers and Code Pink have no meaningful influence whatsoever in Democratic politics.”

Dissent says, “It’s admirable to want to apply the same standards to both sides, but straining to manufacture false equivalencies doesn’t accomplish that. Sometimes, honestly applying the same standards to each side will result in a finding that one side, at least in that regard, is actually worse. When that’s the case, a person engaged in truly independent, non-ideological inquiry — rather than the pretense of such — will expressly acknowledge the imbalance, not concoct an equivalency where it doesn’t exist ... "

Dissent goes on to apply the principles behind this criticism to earlier times in Stewart’s career, implying that it’s some kind of permeating flaw of the show or the man himself (it doesn’t specify), itself assuming that this has been Jon’s tone … all along?

First of all, this entire outcry of thoughtful accusation takes its stance on an assumption that arises from rhetoric isolated around the Sanity Rally: Jon’s introduction of the rally offhandedly claimed dysfunction on “both sides.” A few examples on both sides were given. No, he did not simply blame the right: boo hoo.  

It is a very uncritical overreaction to apply overarching criticisms of the “both sides” rhetoric that had been used to introduce the rally to Jon himself. When the country’s most influential political figures come on the show, from O’Reilly to Newt to the Clintons, most surviving presidents or anyone representing a political idea of the day, is he impeded by some underlying philosophy of equivalency? No. It’s a false dilemma. Give me evidence of Stewart’s impotency.

Pretenses of “equivalencies” have simply never burdened the show; to bring that subject up only in the less-than-a-month of the rally’s announcement, with its examples of “both sides” for their empty rhetorical extremes, screams of fabrication. I share the suspicion of those claiming to be above the fray ... but Stewart never has and has a poise and objectivity very much IN the fray and with a clear allegiance to consistent values, which no one media personality comes close to touching.

Again, claiming he is hindered, in principle, practice or both, by a preoccupation with party equivalencies, is to conveniently disregard the consistency and integrity with which Stewart reveals political truth. How can I empirically say that Jon isn’t some jaded idealist? I can’t, but I happen to agree with the idea that a philosophy of predetermined equivalency towards our two-party system would be a very artificial and ineffective device when applied to something like, say, a political TV show.

Jon Stewart happens to be very effective, regardless of your politics, gives criticism exactly in the amount and direction these critics seem to approve of (excesses of the right wing), and there is no evidence that he is hindered by anything. Whereas most of TV is guilty of exploiting the emotional nature of politics for ratings, Stewart is bold enough to represent those which the media business models do not acknowledge: those who aren’t interested in politics for the social reinforcement, but for the casual participation it provides them.

It seems especially obvious these days that the media seems built around giving people a fix — uncritical, emotionally charged rhetoric that stimulates something primal in people, a need to feel reinforced, simply by virtue of taking a side. The “moderate” rhetoric employed by Stewart when introducing the rally, like “I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler,” and “take it down a notch … for America,” does not imply some pretense of party equivalency. Objectivity is not a vain pursuit, and Stewart proves every day that one can be freely opinionated and practice real rhetorical objectivity. As such, these outcries by various liberal bloggers that Stewart is tied to some kind of self-conscious, political balancing act seems to be a very transparent attempt at being controversial.

—Wiley Robinson is an undecided sophomore. He can be reached at rrobin23@utk.edu