ANGRY OPTIMIST Not Exactly Quality Reading

Article originally published as Book Review: 'Angry Optimist: The Life and Times of Jon Stewart' on Blogcritics.org

I recently had the opportunity to read Angry Optimist: The Life and Times of Jon Stewart by Lisa Rogak. It is, as one might imagine, a biography about the popular host of The Daily Show, written by a New York Times bestseller (for Barack Obama in His Own Words). So while it may not be an authorized biography (presumably, based on the way it reads), I expected it to be pretty good.

At first, it was interesting. While a bit dry and slightly disjointed chronologically, I learned a lot in the first hundred-plus pages. The book skips breezily through Stewart’s early work, trying to make it as a comedian, taking menial jobs, continually failing to find success. For those who weren’t familiar with the comedian until he took over The Daily Show, this biography fills in a lot of the gaps, giving us an idea of the journey, and filling in the details of things Jon has mentioned in passing over the years on his show, without going too deep.

Most of Angry Optimist avoids taking a position on Stewart. It presents quotes from a variety of people in his life, but the first two-thirds of it are pretty factual. When there is emotion, it is gleaned from Stewart himself, a character that comes to life on the page early on. The reader is apt to feel the struggles he goes through and relate to them, most of us having to work hard to try to get ourselves to a place we can be pretty happy about.

Then, around page 150, Angry Optimist takes a fairly sudden turn. Soon, the quotes about Stewart are more opinionated and less reliable. One time, the book attributes some words to “a viewer” with no background on who this person is. Since when does the thoughts of one audience member at home rate inclusion in a public work, meant to serve as a viewpoint for the larger fan base? At other times, it gives a biting bit from former correspondent Steve Carell about a particular incident, but without the greater context needed. Most regular viewers of The Daily Show know Carell and Stewart are friends, and the author hints at that earlier, but then presents this almost out of nowhere. It’s as if the writer is just trying to stir trouble or grab some headlines by including such things, which do not add much to the story because they aren’t illustrated further.

Similarly, this is when the timeline of the book breaks down, with the narrative jumping back and forth randomly, skipping ahead years, and then backtracking without warning. In one particular paragraph, it cites 2003 as a moment where things change for Jon, and then in the same paragraph, uses an event from 2002 as a detail to back that up, which doesn’t make any sense at all. It flits around from bit to bit, checking in periodically with themes that are mentioned and then forgotten about for a dozen pages. It’s hard to follow, disjointed, and certainly not a comprehensive take at all.

It’s puzzling to me where weight is given. A lot is said of Colbert and his spin-off, compared to the others involved in the show. But Larry Wilmore is only mentioned, and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver gets nothing. Admittedly, Oliver’s show premiered after the original release of this book, but the inclusion of “new chapter” in this paperback release should rate something, especially because Oliver went on the air before Wilmore and shares a lot more of his format with The Daily Show than the program that took over Colbert’s time slot. Nor does the book go into much why Stewart is choosing now to end his run. It does get into the impact he’s had on the media landscape, but nothing about what lasting change he may or may not have made.

Overall, I left Angry Optimist feeling pretty dissatisfied. The knowledge gleaned early on in no way makes up for the messy, sensationalist bend towards the end, which turns the piece into a semi-gossipy rag more than an informational biography. At only 231 pages of actual text, it also doesn’t have time to really dig into the subject to figure out essential truths about him, and it feels like the author gives up trying to halfway through. Not having read Rogak’s other work to this, I’d be curious to know if this is normal for her, or if it’s a sign of how she feels about Stewart after researching him. Either way, it’s not nearly as enlightening or scholarly as it should be.

The pictures included are also randomly dropped into places that don’t make sense, but generally the author has no control over this. I understand placement often depends on the printer and production, but I wish more books took the time or effort to better control this aspect.

Angry Optimist: The Life and Times of Jon Stewart is now available in paperback.

The 1st (hopefully of many) Comedy Awards

     With awards shows often hiring comedians to host, and with comedy movies often getting overlooked at the major awards shows, it would make sense that Comedy take their own night to hand out kudos. What's more, since everyone involved is in the business of making people laugh, it is bound to be much, much funnier than other dreary, dragging award galas. It seems like such a no brainer. Yet, it wasn't until this past week that Comedy Central stepped up to host the first ever 'The Comedy Awards', which honored performers and shows from many channels, and aired on several other networks, too. It premiered on television Sunday night, though was filmed a couple of weeks ago.

     Well, of course, success was had! While there was no opening sketch or monologue, the people tapped to introduce and hand out awards were plenty funny. Even the In Memoriam segment showed some of the deceased's funniest moments on screen, celebrating what they did so well, rather than playing sappy music and bringing tears to eyes. Andy Samberg's Lonely Island and Akon performed "I Just Had Sex", which came off even more entertaining than the original Saturday Night Live digital short it was taken from. Jon Cryer also delivered a very classy, amusing bit, playing off current events.

     The sad part is, this show took place in New York, so while all of the New York people were in attendance (Jon Stewart, David Letterman, the cast of 30 Rock, etc.), many L.A. performers couldn't make it. This may be chalked up to first year stumbles, and if the show becomes an anual tradition, more effort to attend among the various nominees will hopefully be made. Because of this, a few major awards were shown only in brief clips, rather than as part of the live broadcast, as the winners were not there to collect them.

     Most winners chose to go for jokes rather than a serious, sentimental speech, which was welcome. Best acceptance speeches of the night go to: Honorable Mention: Kristen Wiig, who thanked several Lornes before getting to Michaels. 3rd place: Trey Parker and Matt Stone, remarking winning an award for South Park, a show that airs on the network giving out the awards, felt awkward. 2nd place: Ty Burrell, representing the mostly-absent Modern Family cast. 1st place: Stephen Colbert, accepting The Daily Show's win, after kicking the real victors off stage, on behalf of all the people sick of being beaten by them for the last eight years.

     Two really big comedy stars were honored with extensive air times. Eddie Murphy was given the Comedy Icon award, and his clip reel reminded viewers that once upon a time, he used to be very funny. Sadly, it appears his acceptance speech was not, as it was thoroughly edited down. Billy Murray presented Johnny Carson Award for Comedic Excellence to David Letterman. The audience went crazy for the elusive Murray. Letterman's speech, on the other hand, went too long and got boring. It's fitting that he won the award, but next time, remember this is a comedy show.
     Other winners included Louis C.K., Childrens' Hospital, Tina Fey, The Other Guys, and Auto-Tune the News for their Bed Intruder Song.

For frequent mini-reviews and occasional TV news, follow Jerome on Twitter.

 

Click here for an alphabetical list of all of Jerome's Current Season Reviews.

A Defense of Education Inspired By Jon Stewart's Interview With Diane Ravitch

     The state of America's education is in the toilet, and overpaid, ineffective teachers are to blame. Or so one might assume based on the national consensus of the past few years. But Diane Ravitch, who appeared on Comedy Central's The Daily Show With Jon Stewart this past Thursday disagrees. As does Jon Stewart. As do I. After watching the interview, I am inspired to lay down my arguments against many education misconceptions, and I will be using some of what Diane and Jon said to make those points. I encourage you to watch the full interview online.

     A quick note: If you have not watched The Daily Show for a few years, you may be forgiven for thinking that it is only a comedy show. It is far from it. Jon Stewart is well versed in policy, and while there are often humorous elements to the series, he gets serious and is knowledgeable on his facts, especially during interviews. There is a reason Stewart has been polled as our most trustworthy newsman over the anchors from CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, and it was not a joke.

     First, a little background, so you know where I'm coming from as I argue the points. I hold a teaching license in two states and am currently a substitute teacher. I love education dearly. I love most of the teachers I've ever had just as much. Jon's mother was a public school teacher, and he holds a very high opinion of her and the job that she did. Diane studies education and recently release a book called The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Undermine Education. I have not read the book, but it has now jumped to the top of my To Do list. So yeah, I am a bit biased, as are the two people involved in the interview I am referencing.

     Point #1: It is the teacher's fault when kids fail tests. As Diane points out, no one likes tests. Kids don't get excited to come to school for test prep. The emphasis on test scores this past decade has valued that over the things kids actually like about education: art, music, physics, physical education. Those latter are needed for a well rounded education, and participation in each of those has been linked to students doing well in core curriculum. In my opinion, cutting the so-called extra curriculars, as schools are doing now more than ever to balance their budgets, will actually hurt the goals of achieving higher test scores, if nothing else, by decreasing student motivation.

     In truth, as Diane is quick to say, poverty is a much better indicator of how well a student will do than teacher performance. Teachers can only do so much to make a kid want to learn when that kid has other things to worry about, like clean clothes and hot meals. Plus, in poor areas, parents are at work more, and not able to assist with the motivation or making sure students spend time on home work after school, an important component to doing well. Is it a coincidence that the worst test scores are often in poor areas? There's a lot more going on here than just ineffective teachers.

     Point #2: American kids score lower than other countries. This argument really makes me mad because that is like saying the horses on an average farm don't fun as fast as the horses on a ranch that breeds race horses. Many countries do not educate their lower-performing students. Those children work on factories or farms. Perhaps their parents can't afford to send them to school, or don't see the value of an education they never got. Many other countries cited do not include special needs kids or second-language learners in their scores. America does.

     In the United States, we have made a commitment to educate every child. Rich or poor, no matter where they come from, they are included in our test scores. Students who have learning disabilities and are in our special needs classrooms are counted. In most states, students who enter the schools knowing no English are exempted from those tests for only a year or two. Can you imagine having to take complicated standardized tests in a foreign language having only one year to grasp it?

     Now, I am not arguing that we should not educate every child. Quite the contrary. I love that our system performs that way, and I do believe every child has the capacity to learn. They may not all graduate with the same knowledge base, but anything we can do to help every kid succeed is great. I am just saying that if you take our upper-middle class suburban school kids and compare them with other countries' statistics, America is doing great. We have a poverty problem, not an overall failing system problem. Though the system is flawed when those poor areas don't do so well, the changes need to come in more than just schools.

     Point #3: Teachers get paid too much, especially since they only work nine months a year. The 40 hour work week does not exist for teachers when school is in session. Stewart testified that his mother was always working incredibly hard, all the time. Teachers spend up to seven hours a day in the classroom, with the kids. Then they have to make lesson plans, grade papers, research trends and new way of doing things, attend college classes, decorate the room, read the books the kids will be reading, etc. Teachers easily make up for those couple of months off in the summer by all the additional hours they have to put in during the school year. I am certain that most teachers work as much as people with normal, forty-hour-per-week, twelve-months-a-year jobs.

     As for pay, it takes a college degree to become a teacher, which often results in large student loans. I can tell you, new teachers are still living very simply for years until they can overcome that debt. But unlike most other careers where they are done with schooling once they enter the workforce, teachers have to take classes for the rest of their lives to maintain their licensure. That costs money, too. Plus, the money teachers pull out of their pockets to equip their classrooms when schools can't afford to do so properly, or just won't. While the take-home pay (with benefits) may seem higher than some other jobs, once you take out those other costs, it really isn't.

     Again, I am not arguing against requiring continuing education. Teachers used to be able to get permanent licenses, but the computer age helped us see how flawed that logic was. Teachers must keep up with what is going on to relate to and inspire kids, who are always on the forefront of the latest wave. I am just saying that the extra work is worth something, and there is more than a base salary to consider.

     Point #4: Our education system is full of horrible teachers gaming a system that will not fire them. Sure, there are some teachers who do the bare minimum and punch out at 4 p.m., but they are few and far between. There are lazy people in every industry. Diane mentioned talking to one principal who had supervised about three hundred teachers, and he said he only had one who didn't perform, and he got rid of that teacher. Unions make it hard to fire a teacher, but if cause is there, it is far from impossible.

     The thing is, it is so much work to teach and to stay a teacher, that the lazy, poor performers usually wash out quickly. They have to accomplish a number of difficult tasks, from getting a college degree, to a massive license test, to peer reviews, and supervised classroom time before getting that full qualification. Most teachers do not graduate with a regular license. It takes years after college to earn one. You can't fake your way through any of those steps, so the rigorous process tends to weed out a vast majority of the bad teachers. Not all, but most.

     Point #5: Conservative hypocrisy. This last bit is my current personal beef, though Jon Stewart has echoed a number of my sentiments on his program. I guess he isn't echoing me, per se, but anyway; Republicans who recently threw a royal fit when couples earning over $250K a year might have their tax cuts expire are some of the same ones now claiming that teachers make too much. They say it is tearing away freedoms if we try to regulate the financial industry or put ceilings on bonuses (in the millions of dollars), but $50K and some health care is too much when it comes to teachers. As for the argument that the public's taxes pay for teachers, but not those said financial people, after the major bailouts of the last few years, that is simply not true.

     Wall Street got us into this mess, but the Republican party wants to make civil servants, like teachers, pay to get us out. What's more, teachers are willing to make sacrifices, unlike the aforementioned Wall Street workers, but GOP governors want to take away their union bargaining power anyway. It took a long time for teachers to earn a decent wage. How long will that last once they no longer can collectively bargain? The Wisconsin and Ohio fiascoes currently in progress are a total stain on our nation.

     Wrap up: On a broader scale, is it democratic to limit pay, or are we just trying to transfer the wealth, stealing from the rich to give to the poor? The heads of companies now often make one hundred and eighty times what their average employee makes, versus more like forty times as much in the past. These are estimates, but ones in the ballpark with reality. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect employers to pay employees more when we are talking about those kinds of disparities.

      Union membership is down, and some conservatives argue it is time to get rid of unions, as a thing of the past. I say this unsustainable, disgusting gap between the rich and the rest of us is being exacerbated by a lack of unions. If more people unionized at their jobs, balance might be restored a bit better. Don't take away teachers' (and firefighter's, and police officers') unions because teachers (et al) get better benefits than other jobs. Unionize those other jobs and fight for something resembling fair pay!

      I have said my piece, and I welcome any comments or discussion below. I didn't cite sources because I didn't do specific research for this piece, but rather synthesized years of keeping up on the issues from a variety of sources. I ask that the discord stay civil and not resort to personal attacks (they will be deleted), but feel free to cite studies (that are verifiable) and question facts (if you find a legitimate source that disputes them). I look forward to the debate.

Article first published as Education Defense Essay Inspired By The Daily Show With Jon Stewart's Interview With Diane Ravitch on Blogcritics.

For frequent mini-reviews and occasional TV news, follow Jerome on Twitter.

Click here for an alphabetical list of all of Jerome's Current Season Reviews.

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Inspired

      I'd like to tell you what it felt like to be at the Rally to Restore Sanity and / or Fear, but it's difficult to convey in words. I'm sure by now many of you have seen the bad reviews. As I had a hard time seeing and hearing things at the rally, I watched my TiVo recording of the entire thing last night, and was disappointed by much of the content. Yep, it was boring, at times awkward, and mostly music. I could give you the rundown on everything that happened, but you can find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say, if you were judging on the event only on what went on onstage, you would be disappointed.

     But as usual, the truth is far more nuanced, and this was one of those occasions where you just had to be there. To be packed in with 215,000 other people was amazing. The excitement was thick. Everyone was smiling. No one was shoving. People were polite and reasonable, as the Jon Stewart asked them to be. Some people brought signs and stickers that they were passing out free to others. It was a big feeling of community. You really got the sense that the attendees were there because they believed in the Sanity message, not Fear, and certainly not some overly radical political agenda.

     Sure, that number of attendees has been debated. Estimates range for 200,000-250,000, though 215,000 seems to be the number most media outlets have gone with. I'm sure FOX puts it at much lower number. Their reviews talked about 'political radicals' and 'backlash against the tea party'. Sure, I only saw a small fraction of the crowd, but I can assure you, most signs were not politically motivated on either side. Most were just plain fun. Throughout this article, you'll see some of the pictures I took, and they are much more representative than what you may have heard from that famously-biased news network. Ok, let the negative commenting below begin.

     I can tell you, the spirit of hope was everywhere. It was like the best days of President Obama's campaign. Eating the provided continental breakfast at the full-booked hotel outside of D.C. (from which it took nearly an hour to get downtown), people all around me were talking about heading to the Rally, and what it meant to them. From first thing that morning, there was already something in the air, and it was coming from that far away.

     What was happening onstage wasn't all bad, though. Jon Stewart gave out medals for Sanity, and he made some really great choices from recent news stories. One went to the young man that took the Koran from the guy who wanted to burn it. Another went to the pitcher who lost a perfect game to a bad call from an umpire.
 

     As some have said, Stephen Colbert's place, and Fear itself, was for comic relief. While there have been complaints about the reduced, unbalanced role, it was definitely appropriate. Colbert's show, which I love, is one big joke. He is a satiric pundit, whose purpose is to make one side of the aisle look ridiculous, and play a character with a huge ego. He served that purpose just fine at the rally. Colbert certainly has his place, but if he had been given too much focus, and his character's opinions (Colbert's opinions are much more sane) allowed to be legitimized, it would have undermined what was going on there.

     Finally, Jon Stewart's speech was beyond mesmerizing. He really captured the spirit of not only the people gathering in D.C. to see him, but a whole lot of Americans out there fed up with what's happening. Below is part of the content of that speech, to give you an idea of what his message truly was. After you've read it, I'm sure there will be little doubt what Stewart is about, and why the Rally needed to be held at all:

     “I can’t control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions. This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.

     But unfortunately one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.

     If we amplify everything we hear nothing. There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers or real bigots and Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate - just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe not more. The press is our immune system. If we overreact to everything we actually get sicker. And perhaps eczema.

     And yet, with that being said, I feel good—strangely, calmly good. Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us through a fun house mirror, and not the good kind that makes you look slim in the waist and maybe taller, but the kind where you have a giant forehead and an a** shaped like a month old pumpkin and one eyeball.

     So, why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle to a pumpkin a**ed forehead eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, of course, our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own? We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is — on the brink of catastrophe — torn by polarizing hate and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done, but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day!

     The only place we don’t is here or on cable TV. But Americans don’t live here or on cable TV. Where we live our values and principles form the foundations that sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done. Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do — often something that they do not want to do — but they do it - impossible things every day that are only made possible by the little reasonable compromises that we all make...

     [People must get along when traffic merges.] ...And they do it. Concession by concession. You go. Then I’ll go. You go. Then I’ll go. You go then I’ll go.Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s okay—you go and then I’ll go...

     ...If you want to know why I’m here and want I want from you, I can only assure you this: you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted.

     Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. To see you here today and the kind of people that you are has restored mine. Thank you."

     Hearing those words, it was impossible not to be moved. No matter what your political views, most of us are reasonable, and want to find ways to get along. Most of us are willing to work with the other side of the aisle, and most of us do not demonize the people who disagree with us? How can we? They are our parents, grandparents, aunts, uncle, cousins, siblings, friends. My family was almost perfectly split down the middle in 2008. I'm sure it wasn't the only one.

     No one can tell yet what effect the rally might have on today's mid-term elections. Likely, that effect will never be known. Will Stewart have mobilized millions of people to go out and vote, based on his audience, mostly young liberals? Will he have reached people on both sides to bring the candidate who they feel will most likely bring a real American spirit of compromise? I think the Rally definitely inspired many, although to what extent, I can't be sure.


For frequent mini-reviews and occasional tv news, follow Jerome on Twitter.


Article first published as Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Inspired on Blogcritics.

It's official: Conan is done with NBC

     It's a done deal.  Multiple news sites (like this one, this one, and even this one!) have reported that Conan O'Brien has accepted a $45 million severance package to leave NBC for good.  It had been reported that the major obstacle left to be worked out concerned what would happen to Conan's staff.  Under the final deal, Conan will take $33 million, and the rest will be split among his roughly 200 employees.

     Something else that needed to be negotiated was how long Conan needed to stay off the air waves after leaving NBC.  While he was still supposed to be under contract to the network for some time, this current deal will allow him to return to television as early as September 1st of this year, assuming someone else hires him.  ABC doesn't seem to be much interested, and Fox, which was willing to pay a heck of a lot a few short years ago, is playing coy.  Comedy Central is said to be a possibility, but how he would fit in with the very popular Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert remains to be seen.

     Conan will air his final episode as host of The Tonight Show tomorrow night, and will feature guests Tom Hanks and Will Ferrell.  You may remember that Farrell was on his first show, way back last June.  NBC will air reruns of the show next week, which had previously been scheduled, but there is no word yet on what will do during the last two weeks before the Olympics, during which Conan was supposed to film new episodes, but will now not.  NBC wasted no time in confirming that after the Olympics are over, Jay Leno will resume his previous job as host of The Tonight Show in it's customary time slot.  While Leno had better ratings than Conan ever achieved, popular support in the current fight has been mostly behind the Irish red head.

      The Tonight Show, no matter who is hosting, airs on NBC at 11:35pm Monday through Friday.

     Comedy Central tends to give most shows only a season or two, and this fall is shaping up to be no different.  Two new shows have premiered, The Jeff Dunham Show and Secret Girlfriend, and neither one is shaping up to be a keeper.  Dunham's standup act is hilarious, but broken into twenty minute episodes with skits that send his puppets to the real world, it just falls flat.  There have been a few laugh out loud moments in the first few episodes, but only a few.  It doesn't appear destined to air for long.  Similarly, Secret Girlfriend, while a novel and original idea, just can't hold interest.  Horny teenage guys may drool over it, but once a boy has had a serious girlfriend, or a few hookups, the show should loose interest quickly.  It's little more than filthy softcore porn.  Traditionally, though, the genre has belonged to women, so it's interesting to see a young male's perspective.  However, one episode is plenty.

     These recent failures are not a sign that the network is down for the count.  It has shows like these every year.  It banks on a string of strong, long-running series that continue to deliver.  Jon Stewart has never been funnier, and for anyone who though Stephen Colbert would loose relevance once Bush left office, they were dead wrong.  The dynamic duo keeps late night funny, and still delivers topical political news stories.  Recently, after Walter Kronkite's death, Time Magazine conducted a poll finding Jon Stewart the most trusted newsman in America, beating even Brian Williams, proving that he is more than fluff.  Colbert triumphed again just this month when convincing followers to support the US Speedskating Team.  Not to mention South Park, which after a season or two of mostly duds, which followed some of the best episodes of the series, is fully back to relevance.  Last week there was a great satire on Fox News, among other things, and other recent episodes tackled the meaning of the word fag, dead celebrity ghosts, prostitution, Japanese fishing, and wrestling.  The Sarah Silverman Program should also be back soon, and though Reno 911! has ended a six season run, the network will be bringing back new episodes of Futurama, six years after Fox cancelled it.

     What will be Comedy Central's next big hit?  Afterall, there tend to be about a dozen or two flops in between each successful show.  Luckily, the network seems to have the resources to keep trying, and part of the fun in seeing what they come up with next, even if you have to wade through garbage to find it.