Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck: Can’t even think of a witty title for this.
Not even sure where to begin with this. I’ll start with the presidential campaign I suppose. Both brought up the fact that Obama said “Vote for revenge” and Romney turned it around to say “vote for love of one’s country”. While Stewart took a more humorous approach to this, it seemed that Beck tried to paint Obama as a villain who simply wants revenge, in support of Romney. Stewart takes a more neutral approach to his ‘reporting’ on The Daily Show. He doesn’t stick to berating one political party, rather he makes a joke out of the whole process by using two middle-schoolers as an example. Beck however you can see with the way he critiques Obama and keeps insisting the government will fall under his ‘rule’, one would assume he’s a Republican (he’s a conservative member of the tea-party, and that’s a huge difference, apparently). Stewart doesn’t show a preference when reporting, he keeps a straight face when announcing the winner of the presidential election. Meanwhile Beck grins with confidence and jokes around, believing Romney will win the presidency (that turned into a real nasty surprise for him).
Oh, here’s an non-controversial similarity between the two! They both host a show! Nothing wrong with that!
Well…one is a comedy show to make you laugh while another show beats you with facts until you’re brain dead and convinces you that the government is full of conspiracies…
Stewart does use comedy to share his information; after all, it is a show on Comedy Central. While Beck’s program is strictly informational and serious, he does manage to sneak in humor. While it isn’t exactly the ‘laugh out loud’ type of humor you would get from The Daily Show, he does throw in sarcastic or witty comments to give the viewer a break from his conspiracy theories and constant bombardment of information.
Watching The Daily Show didn’t feel like an assignment like the Glenn Beck Program made it feel like. The Daily Show has a light, comical atmosphere that makes absorbing this political information a bit easier to handle and retain. Meanwhile having Beck bombard you with information is completely different. His show isn’t amusing or fun to watch. Even though he’ll throw in a sarcastic comment or make a joke (like sitting with a crystal ball and Ouija board to make his prediction), it’s really all informational and not meant to be amusing. That isn’t his goal, his goal is to get information across and to enlighten his viewers, comedy is the least of his troubles.
You know what I noticed between the both of them did I enjoyed? There’s a nice bit of each of their shows that doesn’t focus on making fun of something or showing their wrong-doings, but rather focuses on the good or those who need help. Stewart mentions Hurricane Sandy relief, while Beck talks about a young disabled girl being bullied in school. While both are completely different topics, this showed a nice side of humanity to them, not that I doubted it was there, it was just a nice thing to see.
Stewart’s show has his ‘field reporters’ which go out and question Americans or other people in politics, just like Beck had done when it came to the fiscal cliff situation. Stewart uses this technique more though, and while in both cases you see what Americans think is going on with the government or news stories, Beck hardly uses this and I think it’s a shame, if he sent people out to do questions more, I believe it would make a stronger argument for his points.
I realized both shows brought up interesting government conspiracies. While I doubt Stewart’s was actually serious, Beck was absolutely positive about his theory.
Ah yes, and I liked that with The Daily Show, you get something different each day. If you watch three different segments of the Glenn Beck Program, they mostly cover the same story each day, just for slightly less time each episode. The constant coverage of the Petraeus case grew bothersome, and each time it seemed like it was a little less information and just more sarcastic commentary.