When I was applying to college, I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life.  The concept of narrowing on some field of study and speculating on career paths was extremely intimidating to me, I think because in my idealistic brain I envisioned pursuing a career in a field that I was truly passionate about.  At that point in my life, my only identifiable passion was sports, and I had no delusions of becoming a pro athlete.  But then my senior year something happened that gave me a newfound excitement about my future.  I was introduced to an idol, somebody thriving in a position I really wanted to be in who I could spend my career trying to emulate.  That idol was John Stewart.  He was unlike anybody I’d ever seen before: smart, articulate, and hilarious.  He made it fun to learn about the world we live in.  I consumed dozens of hours of The Daily Show that year.
   Later that year, Stewart left the Daily Show, and passed the torch on to Trevor Noah.  I’m a fan of Noah’s as well, but after John’s departure I lost some interest in the show and watched pretty sparingly.  Fast forward 8 years, and I’m a no-longer-new undergraduate graduate that’s taking another step forward in my awareness of the world around me.  I’m fascinated by the big questions, eager to get to the source of why the world is the way that it is, and to understand where I fit into all of it.  I’ve sought out books and movies that take a wide lens and pursue existential subjects.  Piece by piece, I’ve started to get a picture, each phase of my education eroding some of my pre-existing perceptions, and revealing a slightly deeper truth.  All the while, I’ve tried to stay ideologically fluid and open.  Perhaps the most important lesson I took away from my time at undergrad was my introduction to epistemology–the study of how we know what we know.  A proper epistemologist has a keen sense of what is subjective, what is objective, and is reluctant to make rigid conclusions.  My goal is to seek out truth, even at the risk of compromising a perception of the world that I find convenient or comforting.  I’d rather know than not know.
   One day, I was on Apple TV and saw a banner ad for The Problem with John Stewart.  I’d seen some ad years ago that he was coming back with a new show, but hadn’t sought it out or heard much more about it.  Here I was desperate to understand how the world really works, and along comes my high school idol with a series of exposés on the world’s problems.  I was excited to check it out.  As I watched a few episodes, though, and listened to some episodes of the show’s accompanying podcast, something bugged me.  I have a problem with John Stewart.
   One of the most recurring themes I’ve noticed as I’ve become more interested in politics is how tribal the US political landscape is.  The narrative is always us vs them, conservatives vs liberals, Republicans vs Democrats.  Political leaders claim to strive for bipartisanship, to want to end divisiveness.  I do not pretend to be an especially informed student of politics, and to be fair there is a lot we don’t see behind closed doors, but more often than not when I hear political leaders speak they are sewing more divisiveness.  Be it intentional or not, they establish the language that is perpetuated by political observers, and all the finger pointing has led to the names of each party being used as derogatory terms in popular discourse.  As a result, tribal sentiment trickles down to the arena of the media and entertainment.
   What I’ve observed is that John Stewart often panders to his liberal-leaning base rather than striving to reach the audience at large, and antagonizes opposition to the point of instigating more division instead of unity.  Part of this is likely due to business reasons–most people enjoy watching things they agree with, and if you stay too in the middle you don’t capture an audience at all.  But I think John Stewart is a special figure, and has the ability to transcend the norms of political programming.  One instance where Stewart failed to broaden his outreach, and that I found especially concerning, is his episode of The Problem on racism.  In the episode, Stewart assembles a panel of experts on race, as well as prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan.  It became clear very early in the panel’s discussion that Sullivan was the odd one out.  While Stewart and the rest of the panel were criticizing the US for how its systems have left black people behind, Sullivan was on the defensive, and expressed disapproval for the narratives established so far in the episode.   This led to the other panelists, and, more notably, Stewart and the live studio audience, ganging up on Sullivan.  Early in the discussion, Sullivan objects to referring to the US as a “white supremacy”.  The panel makes a poor effort to step back and clarify the language, and, following Stewart’s lead, antagonize Sullivan and take aggressive tones, much to the approval of the studio audience.  Even though Stewart recognizes he’s gone too far at points, and makes half-hearted apologies at attacking Sullivan, the damage is done and Sullivan clearly becomes more defensive.  I will concede that at points Sullivan becomes rather frustrating, such as when he asks the rest of the panel to reiterate examples of “systems” that perpetuate institutional racism, and then deems the examples they provide insufficient.  But that does not excuse Stewart lashing out with aggressive tone and language.  I understand that it requires a taxing amount of patience to argue with someone that is entrenched in ignorant beliefs, but that’s what it will take to combat the urgent epidemic of ignorance in this country.  Andrew was a perfect representative of the portion of the US population that is ignorant to the true nature of black oppression, and has been fed tropes that sound rational but actually masquerade institutional racism.  Instead of striving to reach him, Stewart (with the vocal encouragement of his tribe) alienated Sullivan, and he retreated to the beliefs of his own tribe that he came into the conversation with.  The discussion was an opportunity to breach a gap, but instead it surely widened it.
   There were two moments in the discussion that I found particularly note-worthy.  The first was when Sullivan is defending himself after Stewart laments that “he’s not on the same planet”, retorting that it is instead Stewart who “[is] not living on the same planet as most Americans are, and it’s this type of extremism that is leading to backlash…election of republicans, undoing the good work that you think you’re doing”.  While this may sound like a weak response to Stewart’s dig at Sullivan, I think he actually identified a major problem with the Left’s messaging.  Many liberal leaders and commentators are often guilty of using overly dramatic language that incites defensiveness in opposition, or dubiousness in unfamiliar parties.  While severe issues should be addressed with urgency and seriousness, I believe discussing them with a more moderate and measured tone is far more effective at compelling general audiences.  The other line from the discussion that I thought was notable was when one of the panelists, who works with an organization that facilitates conversations about race, boasted that her organization “does not even engage with white men” because “if white men were going to do something about racism, you had 400 years”.  I understand that historically white men have been the problem when it comes to racism in the US, but I believe that means they must also be vital to the solution.  If we don’t reach the afflicting population (and more importantly, the new generation of that population) and change their perspective, especially when, in today’s world, they are commonly in positions of greater influence, how can we expect to change things?  Ostracizing ignorant or guilty parties only entrenches them where they are instead of inviting them to common understanding.
Here’s a link to the discussion.
   Part of the reason I think Stewart lost his composure during the racism panel discussion is an issue I’ve observed in many arenas: when you debate or speak with an audience, you’re naturally inclined to act so as to elicit applause and cheers, and the applause and cheers can excite you to the point of getting carried away.  It’s ubiquitous during debates or speeches in front of live audiences, and can also be observed on the internet with digital audiences.  There’s now a prestige associated with vilifying a supposed enemy of a cause or group, and it’s understandable why.  Humans are tribal beings, and we crave acceptance from our tribe.  But if we don’t keep our primal inclinations in check, we can overlook opportunities to adopt more members into our tribe, or potentially merge entire tribes.
   For the record, I’m still a huge fan of John Stewart.  I think he does a remarkable job of educating people by presenting social and political commentary in an entertaining way.  And I don’t think that he’s a totally one-sided commentator.  In his episode of The Problem on Media, he spends the majority of the episode criticizing CNN and liberal media.  But as Ben Parker said, “with great power comes great responsibility”.  Stewart’s platform allows him to reach so many people, and I believe he can be an even greater champion of unity than he currently is, by resisting the temptation to pander to his tribe and making more of a concerted effort to reach those that don’t already cheer for him.