I just got the latest table of contents (v23n4) for the journal Critical Studies in Media Communication, and they reproduced a series of papers from last year’s NCA in San Antonio as a Critical Forum. In their article, Roderick P. Hart and E. Johanna Hartelius put Jon Stewart on trial:

We accuse Jon Stewart of political heresy. We find his sins against the Church of Democracy to be so heinous that he should be branded an infidel and made to wear sackcloth and ashes for at least two years, during which time he would not be allowed to emcee the Oscars, throw out the first pitch at the Yankee’s game, or eat at the Time-Warner commissary. Our specific charge is that Mr. Stewart has engaged in unbridled political cynicism. And it is no coincidence that “sin” and “cynicism” have an assonant quality. But we are not accusing Mr. Stewart of being an apostate, one who has abandoned the Democratic Faith altogether. Unlike an apostate, a heretic professes faith in the overall tenets of the religion but disagrees with, or fails to practice, or tries to undermine, its most vital beliefs. In contrast, Mr. Stewart cleverly claims to advance the tenets of democracy during his nightly assignations while in truth leading the Children of Democracy astray. He plants in them a false knowledge, a trendy awareness that turns them into bawdy villains and wastrels.

Then both Robert Hariman and W. Lance Bennett rise to his defense. here’s Bennett’s start:

Esteemed members of the jury: is there anyone here who is not a fan of Jon Stewart? As no hands are raised, I move to empanel all of you as jurors in this case. It is clear that our task is less to decide the fate of one comedian than to dispel the common prejudice that a cynical brand of comedy is somehow undermining the capacity of citizens (particularly young citizens) to gain enough knowledge and perspective to enable intelligent political participation. Indeed, the core charge is that the prevailing brand of comedy epitomized by practitioners such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert not only distracts people from serious understandings of events, but stigmatizes the political process and demeans citizenship itself.

The article’s are smart, and are also a nice reminder that scholarship can also have style. Sadly, the journal is by subscription, so unless your library has it, you need to pay to get access to the articles.