With your first question...I think the reason Stewart is trusted isn't sarcasm but the assumption that all of the news is tainting is a bit, and at least Stewart is being up front about it.

I think what the church needs to learn from this is that we should just be up front. People usually know we are religious, just admit it and move on. They will know we have something to say, and we can say it when appropriate. I don't think it get us anywhere to be coy about sharing our faith.

I'm not sure this is such a new effect. Isn't it just the latest incarnation of Shakespeare's wise fool - that truth can be made palatable by humour, especially when spoken by one perceived as being outside the system?

I'm inclined to think human nature has changed less than we think, that each generation is less unique than it thinks...

Sarcasm yes, but honest. That is why he makes the other two seem like buffoons. They are so tied to their partisanship that they see and hear nothing else. I think the coming generation is rejecting, and laughing, at partisanship.

Back when Stewart went on CNN, the Daily Show's producer made a telling comment. Something like "It doesn't really surprise me that people mistake the Daily Show for news. Heck, look how many people mistake *CNN* for news!"

For a lot of us, trusting Stewart more than Williams/Gibson/Couric is not at all a statement about Stewart, and absolutely a statement about news media in general.

Government and media have been broken for far more than the past 30 years. Read the Wikipedia article on "Yellow Journalism" and try to find a major news source that doesn't fit the description in the first paragraph.

Or, as Stewart says: "Send me a sticker and I'll put it on my %@#$! television."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/jon-stewart-mocks-cnns-ir_n_216638.html

Adam, I couldn't agree with you more. And Phil Vischer is right on track. We are a generation that has been lied to, and people like Stewart expose the lies of people. Sure it's not balanced or even news, but it scratches where our generation itches. We don't want to be lied to.
I think it calls us to be up front with people, tell the truth, have some integrity. And when we are hypocritical, fess up. Thanks for the observations.

I guess I'm part of the second generation born after Watergate? Whatever the case, we're pretty sarcastic too.

In the case of "The Daily Show", my main concern is to figure out *why* so many people believe that conventional news outlets are dishonest in general. Sure, you can tell if a paper is strongly left or right by the way in which it records events, but record them it does, so why equate bias with dishonesty? One doesn't equal the other, and bias in and of itself is not inherently evil. I'm personally both deeply amused and deeply disturbed by the fact that so many people believe there's such a thing as "unbiased media". Even a clinical, empirical accounting of an event cannot avoid being unbiased, simply because even empirical facts are interpreted by the person collecting them. That interpretation will be biased. We see this all the time in the scientific community, when researchers prove something according to their interpretations of cold hard data, and are in turn disproved by other researchers according to THEIR interpretations of cold hard data. If I may be so bold as to say so, it's a fact of life.

A little closer to home, you'll often see the impact of personal interpretation on empirical information as it happens in the kitchen. Ever wonder why fifty people can follow the same recipe from the same cookbook - not skipping or adding any ingredients or steps! - and wind up with fifty dishes that all taste different from each other? Or why even though you followed the recipe for mom's chicken soup to the letter, it tastes nothing like mom's chicken soup?

The "whole truth" factor is probably also in play in terms of distrust in conventional media - you know, the idea that not telling the whole truth constitutes telling a lie. Obviously, an event recorded in a biased fashion will only tell some of the truth; you'll have to go to the ideologically opposite news outlet to get the (equally true) rest of the story. At any rate, I don't think the idea of "whole truth or no truth" is reasonable to apply to journalism, because with very few exceptions no journalist will ever be able to tell the "whole truth" - either they won't know it, or won't be permitted to tell it for security reasons, or will be blackmailed or pressured into not telling it.

I'm young and don't have an ingrained distrust for formal news outlets, for the simple reason that I've yet to find a convincing reason not to. I'm so not hip. :(

;)

Without trying to be sarcastic...it's hard for me to drum up much sympathy for a generation who uses the shield of sarcasm to ward off the hurt and pain caused by consumer Christianity and no-fault divorce when most of human history kids really did pick up actual shields to defend their families from some source of tyranny or in advance of tyranny.

Having said that, I agree with your assessment of our use of sarcasm.

To get directly to Skye's point: sarcasm is like acid. There may be some (few) things that can benefit from having it poured over them. You don't, however, want to splash it on anything or anyone you really care about. Eventually it will eat away at the vessel in which it is carried.

I think the spiritual issues that arise from the inconsiderate use of sarcasm are real and troubling. Sarcasm is not just humor--it is explicitly meant to be cutting and hurtful. That's why, in very small doses, it can be funny--like tickling someone. In larger doses, it's just mean-spirited. It is completely inconsistent with relationships founded in love and respect. Anyone read James' epistle lately?

When sarcasm directed at troubling practices or institutions begins to invade our interpersonal speech, we have a developing problem.

For what it's worth: as a parent, there is nothing more hurtful and destructive than to be on the receiving end of sarcasm from my child. Even if it was intended for fun, it may hit too hard on old wounds.

Skye, thanks for pointing to sarcasm's impact and I like JKG's comment too.

But, I have to say, sarcasm isn't special to this generation. Mad magazine was earlier than my generation and my own generation gave us The Wittenburg Door, full of satire and sarcasm.

Sarcasm is part of the human condition; it thrives in tearing down another human being and is toxic and dangerous to genuine compassion for others. Check out the book called "Father Joe." A powerful indictment of what sarcasm does to the human soul.

Scot, I agree that sarcasm isn't unique to this generation. And Mad Magazine does predate most of us, but to my knowledge Alfred E. Neuman was never voted America's "most trusted journalist." My point is that with this generation sarcasm seems to have moved from the side show to the main stage. And I feel its toxicity in the church as well.

Skye

I think the deeper context is the how we interact with humor and foolishness in general.

In our comedic stories, we used to require character development and a moral to the story. Now, we first had Seinfeld and now The Office and Napoleon Dynamite, where characters are stagnant and their portrayal is merely for our mockery. There is no hope for the character's advancement, only amusement at their foolishness.

Is it that as we compare ourselves to the fool we can feel wise and not so broken?

And its amazing how without fail...literally every time.... I've talked about my concern about our lack of discernment, people rise up with great energy to defend their favorite comedy, more than they ever defend the word of God. With more passion than they ever show about their brothers in Christ.

I've been deeply concerned and disturbed by this trend...more than for sarcasm in particular. I'm one who laughs often and hard...I LOVE to laugh. But my generation's unexamined acceptance of the stagnant foolishness and immorality portrayed on the screens undoubtedly leads to apathy in our lives towards our foolish and stagnant neighbors and brothers.

Those who are our mission become merely comedic relief for us. I'd encourage you to look at those who are most committed to their favorite stagnant-style comedy and see how much they grieve for their neighbors. No, they more often laugh at or despise those who need loving rebuke and encouragement.

And this is unconscionable.

Jesus said that "all people are liars".

We must realize this fact and then follow the money.

This will help us to discern the truth.

I'm not sure I'm tracking with you, Steve.

Where did Jesus say this? And what does it have to do with sarcasm?

My observation is that all people may be liars, but not everything that a person says is a lie.

elly,

I think your comment is revealing. I think your perspective is common among people of your (our?) generation (I'm on the cusp of expert-defined "generations").

What concerns me about what you expressed, elly, is that you don't make a distinction between a unique perspective and a willful bias. I think that intent matters a great deal, that in some important cases, we should expect people to try to recognize and overcome/release/counteract their bias.

My favorite illustration of this is from baseball. An umpire who believes in objectivity says "I calls 'em the way the is." He doesn't acknowledge the possibility of his own perspective being limited. The umpire who believes bias is inevitable and everything is relative says "I calls 'em the way I feels like." That's arbitrary and sloppy. The honest and diligent umpire says, "I'm calls 'em the way I see 'em." His perspective is admittedly limited, but he tries his best to get it as it actually happens, not just according to his whims.

I think the sarcasm of Stewart is very different from, say, the sarcasm of South Park. Stewart really does believe there are things worth fighting for, worth earnestly seeking, worth telling the truth about. I don't agree with his perspective all the time, but he's not merely trying to pour acid on everything (thanks JKG!).

Count me in favor of prophetic sarcasm, but not hopeless sarcasm.

I may be wrong--but isn't the fact that young people recognizing Stewart as the most trustworthy journalist an indictment of their ignorance and naivete--than sarcasm?

Although I don't disagree with the premise of this article, I think to much trust has been placed in this poll (which was from the Time website). It is in no way scientific. It only reflects the opinion of those readers of that website that chose to respond to the poll. This is a severe bias. Plus, I doubt that a great deal of 18-35 year olds are reading Time magazine or going to that website.

Further, there were only four choices. This is like me asking my friends what their favorite color is (blue, green, red or yellow) and then assuming that my entire generation is represented in that conversation.

One could argue that our generation is sarcastic, but this poll is not a great starting point to herald the death of seriousness.

However, isn't this generation forced to live somewhat ironically when we see the church so violently mimic culture at large? Outside the church tradition means very little. Sadly, the same is true inside the church. When some tradition in the church is brought back, it has to be accepted paradoxically as it is usually done so to meet "consumer" demand. So sarcasm is somewhat of a natural position to take when you consider the difficulty laypersons face when they are forced to reconcile cultural, economic and spiritual beliefs which clash dramatically. Perhaps it is a coping device for their own disbelief in what is taking place.

I don't think the roots of anger with the church lie in consumeristic versions of Christianity. That's a new millennium concept. The anger lies in the failed trust associated with fallen televangelists of the 80's that stole our parents money and ruined the trust of millions of children watching it happen.

Nate, I think we're in the same ballpark in terms of era. I'm squished in-between GenX and GenY, forgotten and unloved by social scientists... :p

I was more trying to express that I think bias is a part of what you refer to as unique perspective, which is something neither good nor evil, and that even willful bias is not necessarily bad or lazy. That it's possible to deliberately and tangibly express a preference without going into unhealthy territory. That a (applied) belief in the inevitability of bias does not *require* pure relativity or deliberate blindness to options, and in that way I think the umpire analogy falters a little (or, at the very least, doesn't apply to myself :) ).

For example, I am biased towards Christian ethics and philosophy. I prefer them above all other modes and schools of ethics and philosophy, and I prefer associating with people or consuming media with the same preference. It is possible for me to apply this bias in a lazy or sloppy manner, and I won't say that's never happened; however in and of itself (and as a general rule) this preference is not blind - it does not prevent me from considering other philosophies, exploring them, associating with their disciples or reading their books, though I could easily choose to do so.

Belief in the inevitable, and acting out that belief in a lazy fashion, are two different conditions. Let's say, for example, that I believe according to a preference for a particular school of Christian philosophy that some people are predestined to never be intimately acquainted with Christ in this life, and thus suffer in Hell in the next; as such, it would be reasonable to rest on that belief and never attempt to evangelize. After all, the person I'm talking to may be one of those poor souls, so why bother - those who are meant for Heaven will go there, those who aren't won't, and nothing I say or do will make a difference. It would also be reasonable to actively engage in evangelism, for the same reason of not knowing the destiny of the person I'm speaking with. One belief in the inevitable, two very different possibilities for its fruition.

My husband made an interesting observation about The Daily Show a couple of years back. He felt that after Bush was re-elected, Stewart lost a lot of his fire, becoming discouraged and seeming to add a bitterness to his commentaries that wasn't there before. I wonder if that is also a big reason why people have so much trust in him: so many felt the same way about Bush winning a second term, and people trust other people who share their feelings. They're "on the level", you know?

"By the way, have you ever wondered what happened to all those people who lose their (censored) at those meetings? They go right from the town hall to the local television studio where they become our nation's latest experts on health care reform." (Laughter}

Watching his favorite Jon Stewart's Daily Show, Sam chuckles after a gulp of beer, while gloating over the swarm of sarcasm being slapped on the old folks' faces at the controversial town hall meetings. Sam is liberal and a Democrat. He, of course, voted for Obama. He could be that man, who after knowing Obama had won, told a TV interviewer, "I have to wake up my children," while basking in a "mixture of euphoria and disbelief."

Sam fancies Obama as Godot, a god-figure in "Waiting for Godot," a play about two pitiful characters who keeps on holding on to the "hope" that Godot will come. For Sam, Godot has come in that election, and "change has come to America."

But, lately, on the warpath, Sam is under stress. His battle: The health care reform. His battleground: The media. His army: The legion of Sams.

At this point, let's call upon the help of M. Scott Peck of "The Road Less Travelled" fame.

What's going on Sir?

Peck: "Individuals [like Sam] not only routinely regress in times of stress, they also regress in group settings...One aspect of this regression is the phenomenon of dependency on the leader."

As their leader, why did they pick Jon Stewart with his sarcastic weapons of mass destruction? (No surprise if Rush Limbaugh's head pops up at the other side of the equation)

Peck: "It is a mechanism of defense."

Against?

Peck: "...the 'out-group'....It is almost common knowledge that the best way to cement group cohesiveness is to ferment the group's hatred of an external enemy. Deficiencies within the group can be easily and painlessly overlooked by focusing attention on the deficiencies or 'sins' of the 'out-group'."

Like the conservative Fox News?

Peck: "[You see, Sam's group] self-esteem is the single most important thing in their lives. They will do anything to preserve and maintain their self-esteem at all times and at all costs. If there is anything that threatens their self-esteem, if there is any evidence around them of their own imperfection or something that might cause them to feel bad about themselves, rather than using that evidence and those bad feelings to make some kind of correction, they will go about trying to exterminate the evidence."

Yes, Jon, it's quite deep-seated. You may stop now scratching your head.

Skye, you say "...I wonder what it says about my generation when we vote someone like Stewart to be the most trusted voice in American news—especially when The Daily Show makes no claim of being a reputable journalistic enterprise." I think the answer is obvious. We're tired of high grade bs. And we appreciate it when someone doesn't try to shovel another load of it our way. The use of sarcasm, parody, irony and ridicule to expose the sinful pretensions, deceits and abuses of those in power has a long and distinguished history and an important role in unmasking the distortions and manipulation that colours much of our public discourse both political and religious. If it helps i highly recommend the essay by Princeton prof Harry Frankfurt "On Bullshit". Interesting read. I find Stewart's kind of humour for the most part not toxic but useful and productive in so far as it helps us name the lies and deceit and moves us toward the truth about ourselves and our disfunctional and cherished constructs about God, church, government, politics, media, etc..

Skye, I think you are mistaken about what is happening with the Daily show, and what is occurring in the church because the two are rightly intertwined for very similar reasons.
The Daily show’s meteoric rise in popularity isn’t so much to do with the personages and base humor that is often engaged, but rather the fearless willingness to take to task the standard norm. In short, the Daily Show is a forum for the powerless, the disenfranchised to voice their thoughts, their feelings, their concerns for something better which isn’t happening currently in our society and in our government.
All Jon Stewart does is put a voice to that angst. The fact that Jon is willing to disabuse his guests right in front of him, going so far as to calling them liars to their faces while providing proof of the accusation, or even more poignantly, thieves, crooks, and murderers with the accompanying evidence is why we all give him the emotional currency to continue on.
Why do we do that?
Because we have been stripped of our significance, our voiced concerns are derided as “well, everyone has an opinion…” instead of “well, lets address that issue.”
When has anyone taken Dr. Dobson to task for his very worldly politics and worldly social engineering?
Did anyone in the church call Mr. Falwell out when he said, “kill them all in the name of the Lord!”?
No, no one has…we grumbled it, some quotes here and there, but the only ones who did and are taking the aforementioned two to task are the unchurched…interesting when the unchurch does the work that we, the church, should be doing.
Justice is not just for the offended, or offending party, it is for all of us to see, to know should we be offended, or offend anyone that Justice will be served equanimously. When justice is served impartial to station or wealth that builds trust in the system, however, when Justice is sold to the highest bidder or outright ignored…no one trusts the system. And the desire for change is expressed in other venues.
And that, Skye, is what is happening with the Daily Show and in the church.
No one trusts the system, so…Jon Stewart has been given the currency to speak for the powerless, the weak, the disenfranchised, the one’s whose voice has been ignored, trampled on, robbed, and stripped by marginalization or derision.

You have focused on the symptom, not the problem which is that people have lost hope, and faith in any form of justice from the secular governing body or the church. Everyone goes to Jon Stewart for a voice…if the individual believer is suppose to be the voice for himself and truth, and is ignored…where does s/he suppose to go for a voice to be heard?

In response to the original article, I've been criticized, by some of my fellow Christians, for being sarcastic and critical. But the alternative, it seems to me, is to be gullible and vulnerable to abuse.

Sarcasm is an appropriate response to hypocrisy. I've seen all too much arrogance and hypocrisy in the church in recent years, and I am fed up with it. I'm fed up with pastors who incessantly talk about love and then turn a deaf ear when I make them aware that I am desperately in need of meaningful help in relation to my financial situation and my related difficulty in fulfilling God's calling on my life. (There have been exceptions, but those exceptions have been few and far between.)

I'm fed up with a society which turns a blind eye to tragedies such as the legal abortion of more than a million unborn children every year, and which then dares to speciously regurgitate platitudes about justice, as if ours is a just society, and as if such people are blind to the connection between that practice and other horrific examples of our inability to appreciate the value of human life, such as a recent incident in which a Texas woman named Otty Sanchez murdered and cannibalized her 3 1/2 week old baby.

I'm fed up with so-called leaders (including pastors) who act as if they are exempt from criticism, in spite of their numerous betrayals of the values in which they profess to believe.

Yes, my anger about the aforementioned situations sometimes comes out in the form of sarcasm. That may not be ideal, but such sarcasm certainly beats bullets and bombs as an outlet for my justifiable anger. If folks dislike my sarcastic inclinations, then maybe they should meaningfully address the issues which led to the sarcasm, by living lives of integrity and genuine compassion, so that I'll have a lot less to be sarcastic about.

In heaven, I doubt that I'll ever be tempted to use sarcasm. In fact, I hope not. But this isn't even remotely close to being heaven.

To your original question....Yes, the Church is the source of the toxic mess you find in politics. It's hate is all over AM talk-radio.
How do think the homosexuals thought of marriage as an option...It came right out of the Republican think tanks, to continue their policy of divide and conquer. Working and middle class people are mad and are right to be. They just don't know who to be mad at. They are sleeping with the enemy.

Skye, the most poignant thing in your article is that sarcasm is a response to anger. Of course it is; sarcasm is the lead soldier in the passive-aggressive army. Since a huge majority of Americans deal with anger passively, sarcasm will actually become more prevalent in days to come. We've seen the alternatives: angry marches, bombing buildings, racial and generational slurs, etc. We are angry at politicians and movie stars. We are angry at scientists and pastors. We are angry at ourselves and "not-us".

But we always run the risk of going too far and sitting in "the seat of the scornful".

Rooted in anger and fear, yes. But even more: powerlessness. You can vote every two years. But that is the extent of your political influence. You can rage and protest, and you might be a two-second blip on one edition of the evening news. You can blog and tweet and facebook all you want to - and your voice is still just out there among the millions.

What our generation stinks at passing on to the next is the ability to focus on what Christ can do through us for the people around us, the people we know and love.

Mostly because we've never discovered it.

"I wonder what it says about my generation when we vote someone like Stewart to be the most trusted voice in American news..."

Just curious, why would it say something specifically about your generation? In looking at Time's poll I see no demographic breakdown. I see it to say something about all of us.

Asking the question "what is wrong with us?" I think sets the wrong tone. I view the results as a good thing, something to wake us up.