There are some people in this life of ours that you can't deny.
Seriously.
You can't deny how outspoken they are. You can't deny how opinionated they are. You can't deny their crass; often intrusive, uncomfortable humor. You can't deny their ability to supplement that humor with fact. You can't deny their willingness to say what others won't; regardless of whether or not others may have been thinking it. You can't deny the hate they generate to pair alongside the venom they spew selectively. You can't deny the praise they receive to pair alongside their willingness to remain who they are; regardless of who has a problem with that.
People of this mettle in my opinion epitomize what it truly means to be American. There is no doubt a code of ethics and an overall level of acceptance, accountability and appropriateness that is implied among the masses; but individuals like the aforementioned know better than to let themselves become imprisoned by what others may deem appropriate. They do not confine themselves in lieu of what may make someone uncomfortable. These individuals are not above tact, however; but they believe that tact should not be used as a shield for ignorance.
What makes these particular individuals truly special, though?
They happen to be comedians.
That's right. They don't take themselves seriously as much as the next person. Hell, many of the issues currently going on across the nation aren't taken very serious, either contingent upon the importance of what is being discussed. What is truly enjoyable about these comedians is that they do have a certain standard that they hold themselves up to. They aren't here for the basic, run-of-the-mill slapstick humor that most people associate with comedians. They are rather inclined to make light of what is going on in the world in a humorous manner while still giving you an informative, enlightened view of these issues per their perspective of the issue themselves. Very few comedians will ever state that one does not have to be informed to some degree in order to thrive in their profession; but the two guys that I will elaborate on in this entry are quite educated indeed.
They say what some of us won't say. They say it when many of us would consider it inappropriate to do so; and they aren't looking to apologize.
Why?
Because more times than not, it needed to be said regardless of what the circumstances were. They understand what constitutes their rights as Americans probably a lot more than anyone else does.
Jon Stewart has certainly established himself as a prominent figure in our entertainment and news world. He has incorporated himself rather well into our political world while keeping intact his manifest goal of comedic entertainment. Jon is in fact a political satirist; implying that he expresses his displeasure with politics in protest or other outright displays of discontentment. He will be the first to tell you, however that he is not an activist of any kind. He is just a guy that cares about what we should all care about. Jon is also a writer, television host, author, media critic and stand-up comedian, of course.
Fans of Jon Stewart will fondly recall his back and forth stints with programming between MTV("The Jon Stewart Show" and "You Wrote It, You Watch It") and Comedy Central("Short Attention Span Theater") early on after his days performing stand-up. Many others will recall him from various movie roles("Half-Baked," "The Faculty," "Big Daddy," "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back," etc.). What he is no doubt most known for more than anything else, however is his highly successful run on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
Jon became host of the show in 1999(although the show started in July 1996 with Craig Kilborn until his departure in 1998); taking the reigns as writer and co-executive-producer of the show as well. Since his joining, "The Daily Show" has experienced steadily increasing popularity and a respectable degree of critical acclaim; evidenced by Jon Stewart earning sixteen Emmy Awards. Now anybody willing to use the information option on their remote controller knows what his show is all about. It is pretty much a satirical spoof of other daily news programs and even networks that show current events and other news twenty-four hours a day. This includes such networks as FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and others. What is refreshingly humorous about his show is that he supports his satire and humor with actual news clips instead of using fixed props or fake stories. There are times where comedic art is used such as in posters, etc to substantiate his point given a current topic; but everything else for the most part comprises what other networks have covered that day or that week in the news.
Many critics of Jon Stewart have stated that he benefits from a double standard: He critiques other news shows from the safe, removed position of his "fake news" desk.
What was Jon's response to this criticism?
He completely agrees.
He states, in fact that neither his show nor his channel purports to be anything more than satire and comedy.
See that? He knows his manifest and the manifest that of his network. He isn't one to be staunchly fazed by the criticism of another at all; especially if that criticism is indeed true. Despite claims that the show is merely for his own entertainment, "The Daily Show" has been nominated for a number of news and journalism awards. In 2005, it even also gave us in my opinion one of the best spin off shows ever on television in the form of "The Colbert Report;" hosted by long-time Daily Show correspondent Stephen Colbert.
Jon Stewart obviously has his reservations when it comes to television journalists and news stations. Fans fondly recall his criticism of CNBC; especially in a week long criticism of the network through early to mid March 2009 involving his very public feud with Jim Cramer; host of CNBC's "Mad Money;" an American finance show focusing primarily on investment and speculation usually centered around publicly traded stocks.
A week beginning on March 4th, 2009 found itself filled with segments and comments between Jon Stewart, Jim Cramer and others including Rick Santelli, Joe Scarborough(from the "Morning Joe" show on CNBC) as well as shows spanning The Late Show with David Letterman and NBC's Today Show among others; culminating in a confrontation between the two on a March 12th episode of The Daily Show. Suffice it to say, the episode became the second most viewed episode of the shows tenure; trailing only the 2009 Inauguration Day episode. Reaching 2.3 million viewers the next day, it also garnered a high influx of traffic on the shows website by that evening.
So what exactly made this episode so riveting?
Well that morning while appearing on "Martha"(Martha Stewart's syndicated cooking show), Cramer revealed that he was a huge fan of Jon's implying even that he idolized the guy; stating that he fashioned his show after Jon's in the idea that one could have an entertaining news program. He stated that this made it a very difficult week for him since he never thought he would be trading shots back and forth with his own idol.
That evening as he appeared on The Daily Show, Jon gave Jim the television host equivalent of a first round knockout:
Stewart first scolded CNBC; claiming that they did not uphold their journalistic duty by by simply accepting information given to it by corporations, rather than
playing an investigative role as a "powerful tool of illumination." He believed that this was due to the fact that far too much of an emphasis was placed on entertainment value rather than just rendering the content in its organic form.
He stated amid clips that he aired of Cramer's penchant for manipulating markets that Jim's on-air personality lacked honesty. Per his words:
"I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a f*****g game. And when I watch that, I get, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me. Because what it says to me is: you all know. You all know what’s going on. You know, you can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear, and AIG, and all this derivative market stuff that is this weird Wall Street side bet."
Jon then delivers hay makers like this one to Jim:
"I can't reconcile the brilliance and knowledge that you have of the intricacies of the market with the crazy bulls**t I see you do every night."
No doubt humbled but still willing to stand his ground, Cramer disagreed with a few of Stewart's points; but agreed that he could have done a much better job with his coverage before and during the economic collapse. Jon wouldn't let him off the hook that easily with his response, however; showing video clips of Cramer recommending ways to drive down stock prices by spreading rumors; which deceives the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission as well as other journalists. Cramer simply apologized and promised to do better.
But Stewart wasn't finished there. He also had a few choice words for one Joe Scarborough who claimed that the satirical nature of his show was unfair. He did so by apologizing to Jim for the personalized nature of the media coverage by stating the following:
"You now have become the face of this, and that is incredibly unfortunate. Because you’re not the face of it, you shouldn’t be the face of it. You were the person that was, uh, I-don’t-know-what enough to stand up and go, 'Hey, that wasn’t fair!' Which it’s not, because this show isn’t fair, and you can tell ‘Doucheborough’ it isn’t supposed to be fair."
Tell 'em how you really feel, Jon!
The interview ended with Stewart suggesting, "Maybe we can remove 'In Cramer We Trust' and go back to the fundamentals and I can go back to making fart noises and funny faces." Cramer responded: "I think we make that deal right here."
There was obviously a palpable amount of media attention following the show the next day in the form of various blogs, Internet memes, forums and various discussions; but none more poignant than what David Folkenflik of NPR stated:
"At times, Stewart crystallizes the frustration others have with the failings of the media with near-perfect pitch. It's one thing for media critics like me to pore through hundreds of articles to say the press didn't quite do its job as a watchdog of the nation's financial system. It's another for Stewart to cudgel a channel that has often championed the markets at a time when so many people have lost so much of their net value."
Quite the embarrassment for someone that shouldn't be as astute at another person or faction's duties aggressively outlining all of the inadequacies of what they were doing compared to what they were set there to do, huh?
Jon Stewart has an obscene amount of distaste for Fox News(to be honest, who doesn't these days?) due to their distorting of news to fit it within a conservative agenda of sorts. He even went so far as to call the network "the meanest sorority in the world." He first criticized them in November 2009 for using footage from a previous Tea Party rally in a report for a more recent rally; which made the latter of these two events appear larger in attendance than it actually was. The shows anchor apologized for the act the following night.
Stewart increased his criticism of the network and its shows the following year; having aired over twenty-four segments criticizing Fox News as of April 24th, 2010. Bill O'Reilly from "The O'Reilly Factor" countered that Jon Stewart's show was "a key component of left-wing television;" further stating that Jon was a big fan of Fox News as the network was deemed highly interesting to watch. Stewart has even reached out to viewers of Fox News; referring to them as the "most consistently misinformed" viewers of political media.
The moment that Jon Stewart gained my total respect and admiration, however came when he visited a show that CNN used to air called "Crossfire." You guys remember that show, right? The show that centers around two political pundits of differing factions and opinions debating over current issues, affairs and political arguments? Yeah. That show. Well, it occasionally would feature a guest appearance such as the October 15th, 2004 appearance of Jon Stewart to promote one of the books he had written.
On the show, Jon shared a very entertaining yet obviously heated exchange with CNN personality Tucker Carlson in which he criticized the show as well as the overall state of television journalism; pleading with the shows hosts that they "stop hurting America." He referred to Carlson and his co-host Paul Begala as "Partisan Hacks;" claiming that not even close to enough debate and discussion of an informative nature took place between them no matter when he tunes into the show.
Although he was invited on the program to comment on current events, Stewart
immediately shifted the discussion toward the show itself, stating
that Crossfire had failed in its responsibility to inform and
educate viewers about politics as a serious topic. Stewart said that
the show engaged in partisan hackery instead of honest debate, and said
that the hosts' assertion that Crossfire is a debate show is like "saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition."
Carlson responded by saying that
Stewart criticizes news organizations for not holding public officials
accountable, but when he interviewed John Kerry, Stewart asked a series of "softball" questions; which inadvertently uncovers the fact that Jon voted for Kerry. Stewart responded that he didn't realize "the news organizations look to Comedy Central
for their cues on integrity." When Carlson continued to press Stewart
on the Kerry issue, Stewart let him have it:
"You're on CNN! The show that leads
into me is puppets making crank phone calls!
What is wrong with you?"
Carlson then made attempts to mock Jon; saying things like "Come on.
Be funny." Stewart responded with "No, I'm not going to be your monkey."
Later in
the show when Carlson chimed in with "I do think you're more fun on your show."
Stewart retorted, "You're as big a d**k on your show as you are on any
show."
In one final response to Stewart's criticisms, Carlson stated "You need to
teach at a journalism school," to which Stewart responded, "You need to
go to one!"
So let's check the score here:
Carlson: 0
Stewart: 5
How monumental was this exchange? How about to the tune of 867,000 viewers for that particular episode alone when Crossfire itself only saw a monthly viewing average of 615,000 viewers per month?
Not enough? Would a cancellation suffice? That's right. Although some have stated that there is no evidence supporting that Stewart's appearance on the show was what led directly to the shows cancellation in January of the following year, we all know better. Apparently, Jonathan Klein knew also knew better.
I mean, he's only the CEO of CNN. Nobody major.
Klein expressed his desire to change the tone of shows on his network; stating in interviews that he sympathized with Jon Stewart's criticisms of Crossfire:
"I think he made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day."
Soon thereafter, Stewart exclaimed on The Daily Show that "I fought the law, and the law lost!"
The Monday following his appearance on Crossfire, Jon decided to briefly discuss it on The Daily Show:
"We decided to go to this place, Crossfire, which is a nuanced public policy analysis show… named after the stray bullets that hit innocent bystanders in a gang fight. So I go to Crossfire and, let's face it, I was dehydrated, it's the Martin Lawrence defense… and I had always in the past mentioned to friends and people that I meet on the street that I think that show… um… blows. So I thought it was only the right thing to do to go say it to them personally on their program, but here's the thing about confronting someone with that on their show: They're there! Uncomfortable! And they were very mad, because apparently, when you invite someone on a show called Crossfire and you express an opinion, they don't care for that… I told them that I felt their show was hurting America and they came back at me pretty good, they said that I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, "I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow."
Is that awesome sauce or is that awesome sauce! There are layers to what this guy does with his information when he mixes it with fact; and the fact is that he wouldn't stand by and let someone judge him on how he conducts himself in his setting when those judging him have evidently lost their own way; diverting so far from their own manifest that they can't see clear enough to light a candle. The comedian that is willing to slap the face of those who shouldn't trying be making others laugh is someone to heralded highly in my opinion.
There is yet another figure in news media entertainment that is just as influential as Jon Stewart if not more than in the opinions of some. He is highly opinionated. He has a very low tolerance for ridiculousness but is not above putting one's face in it if for the sake of enlightenment; and he will do this in a public setting with as wide a range of crass humor as anyone who has ever dared employ such so openly.
Not compelling enough for ya?
Well, he's an atheist that consistently pulls no punches when it comes to topics regarding religion and one's beliefs in a comedic fashion, of course.
He supports the legalization of Marijuana and Same-Sex Marriage.
Oh! He also dated Karrine Steffans; but who honestly cares about that?
Who else has the balls to say something like that?
With a resume' boasting talents that of a political commentator, actor, author, television host, satirist and of course stand-up comedian, Bill Maher can definitely call himself quite the decorated individual.
Will he do so?
No.
He'll leave that to everybody else; not so much out of modesty or the need to be lauded by others; but just because he isn't so much concerned with how others view him contingent upon what the topic is.
While he has been acting, doing stand-up and making television appearances since 1979, Bill's television career also saw its budding starts on Comedy Central with a late night talk show centered around politics entitled "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher." The show saw extensive air time on the network from 1993 to 1997 before being picked up in 1997 by ABC. The show usually began with an initial monologue from Bill before he introduces a panel of four guests ranging in diversity from pop culture, pundits, consultants, show business, occasional news figures and authors. Much like a show that came around later on that was hosted by Maher, topics would consist of issues chosen by Bill.
Maher also did the writing and producing for the show to accompany his hosting of it; which earned him a number of award nominations including ten Emmy nominations, two TV Guide nominations and two Writer's Guild nominations. Politically Incorrect itself won quite a few awards including an Emmy for Outstanding Technical Direction, a Genesis Award for Best Television Talk Show and two CableACE awards for Best Talk Show Series.
Despite all of the accolades that Bill received for the show, ABC chose not to renew his contract for another season in 2002 in lieu of a controversial remark that he made on-air after the September 11th attacks. One of his guests on the show was conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza. Maher expressed his agreement with his guest's rebuttal to President Bush calling the hijackers of the air crafts cowards; stating that the terrorists were not cowards nor did they act in a cowardly manner. Maher expressed his concurrence in stern fashion:
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You're right."
Noting that his comment was widely perceived as anti-military, Maher later stated that this was not the case at all; citing well-documented support over an extensive period of time for the American military. There was still significant insurmountable backlash, however as both FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show; which incurred a substantial blow in revenue for the program.
Bill underwent similar controversy again that same year on the show when he faced criticism for comparing his dogs to retarded children. He later apologized for his remarks, of course; expressing immense regret for his oversight in the usage of such scathing terms in his comparison.
Much to the chagrin of Bill, Politically Incorrect was cancelled on June 16th, 2002.
Much to the triumph that is his influence, however, Maher received the Los Angeles Press Club president's award or "championing free speech."
Let it be known that he received this award on June 22nd, 2002; six days after the show's cancellation.
Is that boss or what?!?!
What many fans of Bill Maher within the past decade associate him with is his HBO show "Real Time with Bill Maher." Maher became the host of this show in 2003; but also shared duty as co-producer and co-writer. Bill has gone on record to state that he definitely prefers his serious, well-informed guests on this program rather than the random celebrities that comprised his discussions on Politically Incorrect. For those that don't watch the show(whoever you are...), it follows similar formats that the previous show did.
Bill shares a humorous opening monologue with his audience before proceeding to an interview with a guest; which may take place in the studio or via satellite. Following the one-on-one discussion, Maher sits with a panel of three guests consisting primarily of figures much like that of the variance of diversity observed on Politically Incorrect. There were a list of changes made to the show between 2008 and 2012 ranging from featuring non-political stand-up comedians to Bill foregoing the opening monologue and holding three one-on-one interviews(which didn't last very long) to the inclusion of his very entertaining "New Rules" ending segment.
The most intriguing addition to the show was the "mid-guest" portion of the show where a fourth guest was brought in after a few of the the topics are discussed between Bill and the three person panel. This guest usually serves as a convenient segue into the next headlining topic of the show. There have been authors talking about their new book releases relative to world issues, directors, and even a celebrity or two. One mid-guest that I was definitely surprised to see on the recent August 2nd, 2013 episode was Jay Z.
It must be understood that on a premium television network such as HBO where there is unadulterated freedom from censorship, one as charismatic and potent as Bill Maher is sure to issue a controversial remark here and there. Hell, look what he did on a network where he couldn't cuss or be crass?
In May 2005, Alabama Congressman Spencer Bachus sent a letter to Time Warner's board of directors requesting that Bill's show be cancelled in light of remarks he made after noting that the military had not met up to 42% of its recruiting goals. Bachus felt that what maher said was treasonous and demeaning to the military at large. Once again, Bill reiterated his utmost respect and support for the military troops, but he would not allow the issue to rest on the laurels of his contrition; inquiring why Spencer would criticize him instead of working to rectify his recruitment issues.
I respect that wholeheartedly. Instead of ignoring the Congressman's accountability altogether for the purpose of issuing an apology, he insisted upon upholding the fact that something had to be done to fix the situation. One shouldn't be let off the hook just because they may have found a way to divert the attention to someone else.
Real Time was and is still to this day a very successful show; earning considerable praise. The show has been nominated for over ten Primetime Emmy Awards as well as six Writer's Guild awards. Maher himself has quite the distinguished feather in his cap as a matter of fact; having notched the record for most nominations without winning one at twenty-two.
Maher is just as colorfully outspoken regarding his views as he is when on television. He doesn't like to classify himself to any certain political party; referring to himself as practical. Bill supports the legalization of gambling, prostitution ad marijuana across the board. He refers to himself as an environmentalist; opposing global warming and environmental pollution and is also a member of PETA(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
Amid controversy regarding his support, Maher openly expressed his support for John Kerry before the 2004 U.S; but criticized him for being ashamed of the term "liberal."
Maher consistently supports the death penalty and has supported the use of racial profiling in airports since the 9/11 attacks.
Maher has professed that he is a gun owner; but he won't go as far as to say that he is "Pro-NRA." He states that he does not consider himself a "proud" gun owner; saying that being such is the same as saying "I'm a proud remote control owner." He like many of us does not believe in the likely fabricated statistic that gun owners are more likely to do harm to a member of their household; believing rather that this is caused by irresponsible gun owners. He has even gone on to state that tragedies along the lines of school shootings will render no critical change of any variance to gun laws due to the fact that both Democrats and Republicans favor guns.
Can't really argue with him there at all.
Bill is consistently extremely critical of religion; viewing it as very destructive. He has been described as an agnostic; implying that he does not believe that there is substantial truth to prove that there is the existence of a deity. Although he has referred to himself in comedic fashion as an atheist, he has denied the label; stating the following:
"I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no."
Bill has referred to himself occasionally as an "apatheist;" however:
"I don't know what happens when you die, and I don't care. There's atheist and there's agnostic, and I'm okay with us not splitting the difference on those; if you are just not a super-religious person, you are on my team."
Pretty fair if you ask me. He isn't denouncing those who are inclined to their beliefs; but he will definitely make his stance on the institution of religion well known. When he has to defend said stance, he knows how to do so in staunch fashion. Consider his take on a news story reporting in 2010 that the name Mohammed had become the most popular name in the UK. In an October episode of Real Time, he felt that him feeling alarmed about that finding shouldn't be viewed as racist. He defended this comment on CNN later on when asked about his use of the term "Westerner:'
"And when I say Westerner, I mean someone who believes in the values that Western people believe in that a lot of the Muslim world does not. Like separation of church and state. Like equality of the sexes. Like respect for minorities, free elections, free speech, freedom to gather. These things are not just different from cultures that don't have them...It's better...I would like to keep those values here."
Another valid point driven home after having to defend one of his candid comments on his own show. Geez! Maher is doing work!
Bill knows how to press the buttons when he knows that he has one whom he debates with on the ropes; especially when it comes to religion.
Take his Fox News debate with Bill O'Reilly:
"If Jesus was in charge of the country we'd probably have health care for everybody."
Go ahead and guess how entertaining that debate must have been.
Bill has even garnered accolades and recognition for his stance on religion; evidenced by him receiving the Richard Dawkins Award for Atheist Alliance International in 2009 and being ranked first by MormonVoices on their Top Ten Anti-Mormon Statements of 2011 list for saying "By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion."
Are you not entertained?!
Mentioning health care, Maher views the American Medical Association as an extremely potent lobbying group; citing it as one of the main reasons why the United States has not successfully enacted health care reform. He believes that illness is the general result of poor diet and lack of exercise; stating that medicinal endeavors are not always effective when it comes to facing said illnesses.
Makes sense if you ask me. Medication can't cure everything. Maher supports his belief by stating that "The answer isn't another pill."
I certainly concur with Bill when it comes to the Flu Vaccine. He is completely against it. During a debate on his October 9th, 2009 show, he debated Bill Frist regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine:
"Why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any vaccine. I don't trust the government, especially with my health."
Bill is very skeptic regarding how serious of a threat the swine flu really is; disputing if completely healthy people could die from it. As is to be expected, Maher's views regarding medicine garnered heat from medical communities; whom believed his remarks to be inaccurate and even harmful to those willing to listen and heed to his views. He basically pissed off experts ranging from Oncologists to infectious diseases experts; all who perceive him as grossly misinformed per his "non-medical" stance on the issue.
Look.
I didn't believe in the effectiveness of the vaccine when it first hit the field; and have abstained from taking it since inception. I like Maher don't understand how placing an infection into my system will help me fight against it. I just do what every not-so-normal-person does: Soup up on meds ahead of time and roll with the punches.
Another large issue that grinds Bill Maher's gears is the litany of 9/11 conspiracy theories that have become commonplace in society and news media over the years. His opposition here proved to be rather direct; heckling Bill from within the audience during an October 19th, 2007 episode of Real Time. He soon thereafter had them ejected from the audience after repeated interruptions centered around their rather raw attempt to raise public awareness about what they believe were government mandated conspiracies regarding the tragedy.
*I believe that it my serve better if I withhold my reservations regarding the 9/11 conspiracy theories until I can dedicate another post to them altogether.*
What I and most people can definitely see in both Bill Maher and Jon Stewart is that while both of have very controversial, colorful, crass and stirring opinions about the world around them, they aren't out to just randomly express and exclaim their stances or beliefs without being prepared to substantiate their point.
Who wants to be that person that goes completely out of their way to express how he/she feels about certain issues only to have no factual knowledge to support why they feel that way? That's embarrassing for the person doing so and annoying to those forced to listen to that person.
Who wants to be that person that expresses their beliefs in a timid or passive manner? That won't ensure any degree of respect from the people one engages; which may result in vital information or a degree of poignancy that may have proven itself beneficial to some if not all being dashed and shun completely. These two individuals definitely have the attitude, intelligence and fearlessness essential to making sure that vital points(although controversial in nature) are divulged.
Jon Stewart holds accountable those who fashion themselves as purveyors of unbiased, unadulterated truth in news media; and trust me: He's probably more angered and discouraged by the fact that he has had to and to some degree still finds himself having to do so. It's sort of like the eldest son having to babysit every Friday night. It gets old. Soon.
Bill Maher is completely comfortable with the complete understanding of what his freedom as an American entails. He takes serious what he truly stands by regardless of who joins him. He isn't afraid to let anyone know how he feels about anything; be it in a heated debate, film, crass humor or any other medium that will hazard a portion of time for him.
Are both of these men highly opinionated? Yes.
Are both controversial? Indeed.
Do both men command an obscene amount of attention? Better believe it.
Why are they so In-Your-Face?
Why are they so willing to deal with the ramifications of their thoughts and statements?
Because they understand that there are points in life where polite niceties just won't drive home what is essential to the enlightenment and advancement that we as a nation should have found ourselves privy to much sooner in its growth and development. They are willing to be the jerk in the eyes of some so that they can be the champion for many more; a sacrifice that some would never be so receptive of in any capacity.
The do this because they care.
The do this because more of us should.
They do this because we need it.
Honestly, I believe that they do this because they live in a country that in one way or another has consistently proven to them that no one else would've wanted to.
Pretty disheartening that charismatic comedians among a perceived meager handful of others have taken up spearheading the importance of voicing informed opinion and holding those in certain positions of influence accountable; something that each of us is expected to do individually and collectively as Americans.
That should disturb you.
Not enough? Would a cancellation suffice? That's right. Although some have stated that there is no evidence supporting that Stewart's appearance on the show was what led directly to the shows cancellation in January of the following year, we all know better. Apparently, Jonathan Klein knew also knew better.
I mean, he's only the CEO of CNN. Nobody major.
Klein expressed his desire to change the tone of shows on his network; stating in interviews that he sympathized with Jon Stewart's criticisms of Crossfire:
"I think he made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day."
Soon thereafter, Stewart exclaimed on The Daily Show that "I fought the law, and the law lost!"
The Monday following his appearance on Crossfire, Jon decided to briefly discuss it on The Daily Show:
"We decided to go to this place, Crossfire, which is a nuanced public policy analysis show… named after the stray bullets that hit innocent bystanders in a gang fight. So I go to Crossfire and, let's face it, I was dehydrated, it's the Martin Lawrence defense… and I had always in the past mentioned to friends and people that I meet on the street that I think that show… um… blows. So I thought it was only the right thing to do to go say it to them personally on their program, but here's the thing about confronting someone with that on their show: They're there! Uncomfortable! And they were very mad, because apparently, when you invite someone on a show called Crossfire and you express an opinion, they don't care for that… I told them that I felt their show was hurting America and they came back at me pretty good, they said that I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, "I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow."
Is that awesome sauce or is that awesome sauce! There are layers to what this guy does with his information when he mixes it with fact; and the fact is that he wouldn't stand by and let someone judge him on how he conducts himself in his setting when those judging him have evidently lost their own way; diverting so far from their own manifest that they can't see clear enough to light a candle. The comedian that is willing to slap the face of those who shouldn't trying be making others laugh is someone to heralded highly in my opinion.
There is yet another figure in news media entertainment that is just as influential as Jon Stewart if not more than in the opinions of some. He is highly opinionated. He has a very low tolerance for ridiculousness but is not above putting one's face in it if for the sake of enlightenment; and he will do this in a public setting with as wide a range of crass humor as anyone who has ever dared employ such so openly.
Not compelling enough for ya?
Well, he's an atheist that consistently pulls no punches when it comes to topics regarding religion and one's beliefs in a comedic fashion, of course.
He supports the legalization of Marijuana and Same-Sex Marriage.
Oh! He also dated Karrine Steffans; but who honestly cares about that?
Who else has the balls to say something like that?
With a resume' boasting talents that of a political commentator, actor, author, television host, satirist and of course stand-up comedian, Bill Maher can definitely call himself quite the decorated individual.
Will he do so?
No.
He'll leave that to everybody else; not so much out of modesty or the need to be lauded by others; but just because he isn't so much concerned with how others view him contingent upon what the topic is.
While he has been acting, doing stand-up and making television appearances since 1979, Bill's television career also saw its budding starts on Comedy Central with a late night talk show centered around politics entitled "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher." The show saw extensive air time on the network from 1993 to 1997 before being picked up in 1997 by ABC. The show usually began with an initial monologue from Bill before he introduces a panel of four guests ranging in diversity from pop culture, pundits, consultants, show business, occasional news figures and authors. Much like a show that came around later on that was hosted by Maher, topics would consist of issues chosen by Bill.
Maher also did the writing and producing for the show to accompany his hosting of it; which earned him a number of award nominations including ten Emmy nominations, two TV Guide nominations and two Writer's Guild nominations. Politically Incorrect itself won quite a few awards including an Emmy for Outstanding Technical Direction, a Genesis Award for Best Television Talk Show and two CableACE awards for Best Talk Show Series.
Despite all of the accolades that Bill received for the show, ABC chose not to renew his contract for another season in 2002 in lieu of a controversial remark that he made on-air after the September 11th attacks. One of his guests on the show was conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza. Maher expressed his agreement with his guest's rebuttal to President Bush calling the hijackers of the air crafts cowards; stating that the terrorists were not cowards nor did they act in a cowardly manner. Maher expressed his concurrence in stern fashion:
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You're right."
Noting that his comment was widely perceived as anti-military, Maher later stated that this was not the case at all; citing well-documented support over an extensive period of time for the American military. There was still significant insurmountable backlash, however as both FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show; which incurred a substantial blow in revenue for the program.
Bill underwent similar controversy again that same year on the show when he faced criticism for comparing his dogs to retarded children. He later apologized for his remarks, of course; expressing immense regret for his oversight in the usage of such scathing terms in his comparison.
Much to the chagrin of Bill, Politically Incorrect was cancelled on June 16th, 2002.
Much to the triumph that is his influence, however, Maher received the Los Angeles Press Club president's award or "championing free speech."
Let it be known that he received this award on June 22nd, 2002; six days after the show's cancellation.
Is that boss or what?!?!
What many fans of Bill Maher within the past decade associate him with is his HBO show "Real Time with Bill Maher." Maher became the host of this show in 2003; but also shared duty as co-producer and co-writer. Bill has gone on record to state that he definitely prefers his serious, well-informed guests on this program rather than the random celebrities that comprised his discussions on Politically Incorrect. For those that don't watch the show(whoever you are...), it follows similar formats that the previous show did.
Bill shares a humorous opening monologue with his audience before proceeding to an interview with a guest; which may take place in the studio or via satellite. Following the one-on-one discussion, Maher sits with a panel of three guests consisting primarily of figures much like that of the variance of diversity observed on Politically Incorrect. There were a list of changes made to the show between 2008 and 2012 ranging from featuring non-political stand-up comedians to Bill foregoing the opening monologue and holding three one-on-one interviews(which didn't last very long) to the inclusion of his very entertaining "New Rules" ending segment.
The most intriguing addition to the show was the "mid-guest" portion of the show where a fourth guest was brought in after a few of the the topics are discussed between Bill and the three person panel. This guest usually serves as a convenient segue into the next headlining topic of the show. There have been authors talking about their new book releases relative to world issues, directors, and even a celebrity or two. One mid-guest that I was definitely surprised to see on the recent August 2nd, 2013 episode was Jay Z.
It must be understood that on a premium television network such as HBO where there is unadulterated freedom from censorship, one as charismatic and potent as Bill Maher is sure to issue a controversial remark here and there. Hell, look what he did on a network where he couldn't cuss or be crass?
In May 2005, Alabama Congressman Spencer Bachus sent a letter to Time Warner's board of directors requesting that Bill's show be cancelled in light of remarks he made after noting that the military had not met up to 42% of its recruiting goals. Bachus felt that what maher said was treasonous and demeaning to the military at large. Once again, Bill reiterated his utmost respect and support for the military troops, but he would not allow the issue to rest on the laurels of his contrition; inquiring why Spencer would criticize him instead of working to rectify his recruitment issues.
I respect that wholeheartedly. Instead of ignoring the Congressman's accountability altogether for the purpose of issuing an apology, he insisted upon upholding the fact that something had to be done to fix the situation. One shouldn't be let off the hook just because they may have found a way to divert the attention to someone else.
Real Time was and is still to this day a very successful show; earning considerable praise. The show has been nominated for over ten Primetime Emmy Awards as well as six Writer's Guild awards. Maher himself has quite the distinguished feather in his cap as a matter of fact; having notched the record for most nominations without winning one at twenty-two.
Maher is just as colorfully outspoken regarding his views as he is when on television. He doesn't like to classify himself to any certain political party; referring to himself as practical. Bill supports the legalization of gambling, prostitution ad marijuana across the board. He refers to himself as an environmentalist; opposing global warming and environmental pollution and is also a member of PETA(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
Amid controversy regarding his support, Maher openly expressed his support for John Kerry before the 2004 U.S; but criticized him for being ashamed of the term "liberal."
Maher consistently supports the death penalty and has supported the use of racial profiling in airports since the 9/11 attacks.
Maher has professed that he is a gun owner; but he won't go as far as to say that he is "Pro-NRA." He states that he does not consider himself a "proud" gun owner; saying that being such is the same as saying "I'm a proud remote control owner." He like many of us does not believe in the likely fabricated statistic that gun owners are more likely to do harm to a member of their household; believing rather that this is caused by irresponsible gun owners. He has even gone on to state that tragedies along the lines of school shootings will render no critical change of any variance to gun laws due to the fact that both Democrats and Republicans favor guns.
Can't really argue with him there at all.
Bill is consistently extremely critical of religion; viewing it as very destructive. He has been described as an agnostic; implying that he does not believe that there is substantial truth to prove that there is the existence of a deity. Although he has referred to himself in comedic fashion as an atheist, he has denied the label; stating the following:
"I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no."
Bill has referred to himself occasionally as an "apatheist;" however:
"I don't know what happens when you die, and I don't care. There's atheist and there's agnostic, and I'm okay with us not splitting the difference on those; if you are just not a super-religious person, you are on my team."
Pretty fair if you ask me. He isn't denouncing those who are inclined to their beliefs; but he will definitely make his stance on the institution of religion well known. When he has to defend said stance, he knows how to do so in staunch fashion. Consider his take on a news story reporting in 2010 that the name Mohammed had become the most popular name in the UK. In an October episode of Real Time, he felt that him feeling alarmed about that finding shouldn't be viewed as racist. He defended this comment on CNN later on when asked about his use of the term "Westerner:'
"And when I say Westerner, I mean someone who believes in the values that Western people believe in that a lot of the Muslim world does not. Like separation of church and state. Like equality of the sexes. Like respect for minorities, free elections, free speech, freedom to gather. These things are not just different from cultures that don't have them...It's better...I would like to keep those values here."
Another valid point driven home after having to defend one of his candid comments on his own show. Geez! Maher is doing work!
Bill knows how to press the buttons when he knows that he has one whom he debates with on the ropes; especially when it comes to religion.
Take his Fox News debate with Bill O'Reilly:
"If Jesus was in charge of the country we'd probably have health care for everybody."
Go ahead and guess how entertaining that debate must have been.
Bill has even garnered accolades and recognition for his stance on religion; evidenced by him receiving the Richard Dawkins Award for Atheist Alliance International in 2009 and being ranked first by MormonVoices on their Top Ten Anti-Mormon Statements of 2011 list for saying "By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion."
Are you not entertained?!
Mentioning health care, Maher views the American Medical Association as an extremely potent lobbying group; citing it as one of the main reasons why the United States has not successfully enacted health care reform. He believes that illness is the general result of poor diet and lack of exercise; stating that medicinal endeavors are not always effective when it comes to facing said illnesses.
Makes sense if you ask me. Medication can't cure everything. Maher supports his belief by stating that "The answer isn't another pill."
I certainly concur with Bill when it comes to the Flu Vaccine. He is completely against it. During a debate on his October 9th, 2009 show, he debated Bill Frist regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine:
"Why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any vaccine. I don't trust the government, especially with my health."
Bill is very skeptic regarding how serious of a threat the swine flu really is; disputing if completely healthy people could die from it. As is to be expected, Maher's views regarding medicine garnered heat from medical communities; whom believed his remarks to be inaccurate and even harmful to those willing to listen and heed to his views. He basically pissed off experts ranging from Oncologists to infectious diseases experts; all who perceive him as grossly misinformed per his "non-medical" stance on the issue.
Look.
I didn't believe in the effectiveness of the vaccine when it first hit the field; and have abstained from taking it since inception. I like Maher don't understand how placing an infection into my system will help me fight against it. I just do what every not-so-normal-person does: Soup up on meds ahead of time and roll with the punches.
Another large issue that grinds Bill Maher's gears is the litany of 9/11 conspiracy theories that have become commonplace in society and news media over the years. His opposition here proved to be rather direct; heckling Bill from within the audience during an October 19th, 2007 episode of Real Time. He soon thereafter had them ejected from the audience after repeated interruptions centered around their rather raw attempt to raise public awareness about what they believe were government mandated conspiracies regarding the tragedy.
*I believe that it my serve better if I withhold my reservations regarding the 9/11 conspiracy theories until I can dedicate another post to them altogether.*
What I and most people can definitely see in both Bill Maher and Jon Stewart is that while both of have very controversial, colorful, crass and stirring opinions about the world around them, they aren't out to just randomly express and exclaim their stances or beliefs without being prepared to substantiate their point.
Who wants to be that person that goes completely out of their way to express how he/she feels about certain issues only to have no factual knowledge to support why they feel that way? That's embarrassing for the person doing so and annoying to those forced to listen to that person.
Who wants to be that person that expresses their beliefs in a timid or passive manner? That won't ensure any degree of respect from the people one engages; which may result in vital information or a degree of poignancy that may have proven itself beneficial to some if not all being dashed and shun completely. These two individuals definitely have the attitude, intelligence and fearlessness essential to making sure that vital points(although controversial in nature) are divulged.
Jon Stewart holds accountable those who fashion themselves as purveyors of unbiased, unadulterated truth in news media; and trust me: He's probably more angered and discouraged by the fact that he has had to and to some degree still finds himself having to do so. It's sort of like the eldest son having to babysit every Friday night. It gets old. Soon.
Bill Maher is completely comfortable with the complete understanding of what his freedom as an American entails. He takes serious what he truly stands by regardless of who joins him. He isn't afraid to let anyone know how he feels about anything; be it in a heated debate, film, crass humor or any other medium that will hazard a portion of time for him.
Are both of these men highly opinionated? Yes.
Are both controversial? Indeed.
Do both men command an obscene amount of attention? Better believe it.
Why are they so In-Your-Face?
Why are they so willing to deal with the ramifications of their thoughts and statements?
Because they understand that there are points in life where polite niceties just won't drive home what is essential to the enlightenment and advancement that we as a nation should have found ourselves privy to much sooner in its growth and development. They are willing to be the jerk in the eyes of some so that they can be the champion for many more; a sacrifice that some would never be so receptive of in any capacity.
The do this because they care.
The do this because more of us should.
They do this because we need it.
Honestly, I believe that they do this because they live in a country that in one way or another has consistently proven to them that no one else would've wanted to.
Pretty disheartening that charismatic comedians among a perceived meager handful of others have taken up spearheading the importance of voicing informed opinion and holding those in certain positions of influence accountable; something that each of us is expected to do individually and collectively as Americans.
That should disturb you.
No comments:
Post a Comment