To make Glenn Beck’s head explode?BPSDB
“I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?”
Jon Stewart
Well no shit Sherlock! The question is, why not?
The context (nutshell version) is that the new book Superfreaknomics has a chapter on climate change that is scientific gibberish. Not simply wrong, but error riddled nonsense. One of authors was on The Daily Show last night for some slow ball questions, with a nerf ball … and no strikes called … with Stewart both pitching and catching for Levitt.
Brad Johnson has done a very nice summary of the Superfreaknomics issue and the interview here (reposted here and here) The issue has been covered on this blog here, here, and here, while Brian D continues to do an amazing job tracking the many, many critiques here.
If you want to watch the Interview you can see it here for Canada, and here for the United States.
What happened?
As Johnson notes, The Daily Show makes a point of mocking the main stream media
for their soft, uncritical interviews and kid glove treatment of celebrities. My personal favourite is here where they contrast the media’s fawning over then President Bush and his cronies with Oprah’s merciless grilling of author James Fry.
So why the PR puff piece for Superfreakonomics? why the hypocrisy? The ‘frame’ for the interview is the controversy surrounding the book’s climate change science, so it’s not as though they didn’t know there were problems. Certainly all of the numerous errors and problems are well documented, fully explained, and easily accessible. Presumably they know how to use a search engine.
Despite that, the most penetrating question Stewart manages is “They feel you are betraying environmentalism? why are people so mad?” even as he offers the irrelevant “you’re not denying climate change” Straw Man argument for Levitt. Legitimate, informed critiques of geoengineering are dismissed as “dogmatic” … by Stewart!
That’s right, Levitt doesn’t even have to BS the interview because Stewart does it for him. From mocking green living to calling climate science “a religion” Stewart sounds like he is reading Levitt’s talking points. Instead of challenging Levitt, Stewart does all of the disinformation and obfuscating for him. Journalism schools could use this as a case study of really appalling interview technique; it’s that bad. As Johnson says, “in this instance, there was nothing funny about Stewart’s inaccuracy.”
To make Glenn Beck’s head explode?
Think about it. What an opportunity for ‘pay back’ by Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, or any of the other pundits Jon Stewart has skewered in the past. All they need to do is cover the story accurately while contrasting it to Stewart’s puff piece.
Trouble is, they would have to cover the climate change facts accurately to really expose what an appalling job Stewart did.
Given that most of them have been wallowing in climate change Denierism and that they actually like Superfreakonomics precisely because of it’s inaccuracies, that is not an easy choice. To expose Stewart they would have to expose Superfreakonomics.
Retract everything they ever said about climate to get back at Stewart? or cling to Denierism and take a pass on the chance to really stick it to The Daily Show? Embrace science and trash Stewart? Stay the course and let Stewart walk? I can see Beck’s head exploding given those choices.
Was that Stewart’s motivation? Even as I write this, is Limbaugh’s head spinning so violently it breaks his neck? It’s difficult to imagine why The Daily Show would so shamelessly abandon everything they preach and betray their principles so publicly, and for what?
A commenter on Daily Show Facebook page says ” Why Jon Stewart embraced and rebroadcast it is a mystery. Maybe his iconoclast side won out.” If so, then someone should tell Stewart that Levitt and Dubner have long since become icons, and that he just did an apologia for the status quo as surely as if it had been Cheney or Rumsfeld in the chair.
Regardless of their status, Stewart should not be giving anyone a free ride since it undermines everything he pretends to stand for. Free ride? this was better than free since Stewart did all of the heavy lifting for the book. Maybe the problem is that Stewart has become an icon, or at least mutated into what he first set out to slay.
What victory?
Which forces me to reconsider the question I discussed in “Scary Monsters (And superfreakonomics)“, ie have we accomplished anything by blogging about the book.
My premise was that the actions of numerous bloggers meant that the general public could hardly avoid being made aware of the books numerous errors and disinformation. It seemed a reasonable argument at the time, but less so now.
If The Daily Show is able to practice such willful ignorance despite the easy availability of the facts, what are we to expect from the general public? How are we going to achieve public education when, for whatever reason, even Jon Stewart is propagating such facile nonsense?
Be that as it may, there IS value to making sure that The Daily Show is aware that “we saw what you did there.” Whether on their forums, their Facebook Page, or anywhere The Daily Show has a presence, let them know what you think of this interview … and maybe suggest to Bill O’Rielly that they could do a correction piece 😉
UPDATE Oct 29: See Super Freaky Economist Continues to Mislead on Climate Issues for the Superfreaks latest (USA Today column) attempt to spin their gibberish.
“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
Not sure if it appears in the linked videos, but I see from the transcript that the studio audience may not have been impressed. Stewart closes the show with:
> Look, I know you are kind of mad about that whole global warming thing before. I just want to let you know I was just kidding around. It’s all good. That’s our show. Join us tomorrow night at 11:00 where the entire set will be made of hemp.
That’s *weak*, Mr Stewart. Spout bullshiit then follow with “only joking!” when it looks like people spotted the bullshiit. [1]
Stewart just joined Maher on the idiot step with his anti-vaccine idiocy.
P.S. Mike, minor stylistic request: don’t underline words for emphasis – I instinctively go to the click them. Usually twice with puzzled expression. Underlines = links on the web. Use italic or bold. [2]
—-
[…] a stunningly non-confrontational chat with Jon Stewart [see Greenfyre re The Daily Show] the other night, the authors of Superfreakonomics have now taken to the USA Today Opinion blog to […]
Oh I’ll keep a look out for that.
We get an edited version of the show in the UK on More4 about a day or two after you. Hope it is on tonight.
You can also watch these and most region-blocked content with http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/8zjv7/instructions_on_how_to_watch_thedailyshowcom/
It’s looking like the unwashed masses out on the tubes are using the “He’s a comedian! He can say what he wants!” defence to hand wave off this idiocy. The fact that Stewart was voted a while back ‘USA’s Most Trust Newsman’ seems to be irrelevant.
[…] Stewart from Brad Johnson, Stephan Faris, More About Politics, and David Roberts. The always-astute Mike Kaulbars puts forward an interesting observation as […]
[…] 2: Geenfyre’s Mike Kaulbars writes: That’s right, Levitt doesn’t even have to BS the interview because Stewart does it for […]
Realclimate analysis of one small bit of the book (solar cells and waste heat):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
—-
Thank you for the links, especially to the transcript. Thanks also to David COG for the instructions on how to watch the show here in the UK.
Stewart goes time and again back to the “surprised at how angry people are” point. Somebody somewhere at some time in the AGW camp must realize that it is no good to use all available firepower, all of the time.
The over-reaction to Superfreakonomics reminds to the times of Velikovksy vs. Sagan, nicely detailed in this page
As shown by Stewart’s choice of words and behavior, all that is happening now to Levitt and Dubner can only spread further the conviction among the general public that especially high-caliber warmists such as RC, Krugman and Romm do not tolerate any form of dissent whatsoever; any kind of mistake; and they do not tolerate even “a good faith misunderstanding” (in Caldeira’s words). [1]
With all the space the authors are guaranteed to have in the blog area of the NYT, this “meme” will reverberate for a long, long time.
Finally from the authors of “pop culture meets economics” Freakonomics one should only expect to use all the tricks of the trade to get as much free publicity as possible. Even the new book’s title is a clear bait for all the people that bought the old one.
An analysis of Superfreakonomics using “rational utility-maximization” itself would surely be the most obvious, pointy, irrefutable critique one could write of the book…Jon Stewart almost got there, at the end… [2]
—-
MM, you keep confusing “making mistakes” with dishonesty.
It is the dishonesty of deniers that we are fed up with and will expose at every opportunity!
Anyone who thinks that there are “mistakes” in that book is either very ignorant of science or is as dishonest as the authors.
Greenfyre – are you suggesting that Caldeira is wrong when referring to “a good faith misunderstanding”? [1]
And somehow you are restating my point…among the general public, who would ever believe that authors like Levitt and Dubner write “scientific gibberish” and are incapable of “minimally competent work” (your words), “failed to do the most elementary thinking” (RC’s), have a book whose “first five pages, by themselves, are enough to discredit the whole thing” (Krugman’s), and wrote “dozens of misquotes, misrepresentations and mistakes” (The Guardian’s)?
Can’t anybody simply show where they are wrong without going so hard against them? [2] As Shakespeare has shown already, excessive protestation does convey some other meaning…
Is anything that Levitt and Dubner have ever written more or even less immaculate than their global warming-related effort, one wonders? [3]
As for “Stewart getting anywhere”, he did make a suggestion for a “Super Freaky Economics” book at the end, something that Levitt and Dubner should have written three years ago if they, or any other economist, really knew anything about economics. [4]
—-
thank you Greenfyre. The Guardian link is broken, or invisible from where I am at the moment.
Greenfyre – Got to the CiF article finally. Looks like many comments repeat the concept that Superfreakonomics shouldn’t be taken too seriously. I guess that’s the natural reaction from anybody following The Guardian on any topic 😎
Many (Krugman, RC, you, etc) have taken a very different approach. You explain that by saying that the authors of Superfreakonomics “are academics” (I think only Levitt is). [1]
Can the difference be explained by a huge does of cynicism eg in the UK public post-BSE and post-Y2K, compared to other places where the “academia” label still carries some clout? [2]
—-
I didn’t “get you”…why be always so adversarial…and careful about comments on journalists, they should be able to google as well as anybody else 😎 [1]
What happened to point [2]? [2]
thanks for clarifying point 1
Don’t worry, parochialism and pretension of knowledge are like entry requirements to work in popular media the world over…
MM and his nasty sock-puppet.
MM gets spanked by Greenfyre and comes back with his sock-puppet.
MM, don’t you know that the use of sock-puppets is considered as big an academic crime as plagiarism. Of course not, I forgot you are just a make believe academic who thinks he can convince people of his expertise and knowledge by using big words which he doesn’t really understand or can use intelligently.
You are pathetic.
Ian Forrester
Caldeira does “not question their good intentions”. You do (mine). Oh my.
Anyway – “pathetic” was not in the list of personal insults collected so far. Thanks for that. No matter that you get to break this blog’s guidelines once again, obviously you do not care.
I care about honest discussion, some thing which you refuse to do.
You are pathetic, and stop using sock-puppets, that makes you even more dishonest (if that is possible).
Ian Forrester – for the umpteenth time, Greenfyre has posted a blog, I have posted a comment, and all you want to write about is…me.
I am not the topic of this Greenfyre’s blog, I have never dreamed of being the topic of any Greenfyre blog, and I consider it wholly inappropriate to divert the discussion in the comments area away from the topic of somebody’s blog.
You are for all intents and purposes soiling up Greenfyre’s comments area with this inane fixation on depicting me as the source of all evil and perpetrator of all wrongs.
I shall now refrain getting back to this obvious point since either you get it, and then you’ll stop abusing this area, or you don’t get it, and then there is no point to talk about it.
I am merely pointing out to everyone that you have a history of AGW denying and dishonesty as found here and on your various blogs.
I think that readers of this blog have a right to know if posters are honest or not.
—-
Ian,
I completely agree re. troll.
Greenfyre,
I completely agree re. book/chapter, and interview
When combined with the previous and related links to argument by argument debunking, it is impossible to understate the criticism.
The global cooling chapter appears as an exceptionally incompetent (or perhaps on the other hand a completely purposeful) misrepresentation of the science.
Why should it surprise us when the climate deniers minimize, excuse, etc., the actions of the authors and an apparently sympathetic or clueless interview?
From the usual denier misrepresentations and cherrypicking e.g. omission of the most current and relevant science regarding sea level rise, promotion of pseudoscience nonsense about how plants just can’t get enough CO2, blah, blah, etc., etc., it is a joke.
One of the authors is a professor who has apparently applied a conceptual economic framework to a topic about which he knows nothing, or has no current understanding.
This sort of thing is a problem for anyone with a sense of personal accountability for what they say on important issues.
The point is not at all about divergent perspectives [1] and no one should be allowed to pretend that it is — at least, not if they wish to be taken seriously.
Terrible work. 😦
—-
Martha – there you are – I was worried about you still silent on this topic.
Thank you for starting your comment referring to me, somehow I am always on top of your and Ian Forrester’s thoughts.
You write: “The point is not at all about divergent perspectives and no one should be allowed to pretend that it is“.
Greenfyre has made a perfectly valid point (academicians publishing books they allegedly did research for, should expect lots of flack when they get things wrong, and especially from fellow academicians). But how does of the stuff written about L&D look outside of scholarly circles, among the “general public” mentioned at the end of this blog?
As shown (also) by the comments to the Guardian piece, there is plenty of people that wonder why would anybody take the “Superfreaks” so seriously. Will anybody prostitute themselves after reading “Superfreakonomics”? Will anybody shoot sulphur in the stratosphere after reading “Superfreakonomics”? I guess not.
Have peole accomplished anything by blogging about the book? Yes, in the sense of increasing its sales figures, and in making plenty of onlookers wonder why climate discussions always get so much vitriolic.
—-
[…] Jon Stewart’s recent fiasco illustrating just how ill-informed he was on climate change, I knew I’d be watching rather […]
I’m gonna have to go with Ian.. he has a point.
“Journalism schools could use this as a case study of really appalling interview technique; it’s that bad.”
There’s a crucial point you’re missing in this entire article: Jon Stewart is not a journalist and frequently reminds his viewers that this is the case. Being a journalism student myself, I have studied the implications of the Daily Show on the mainstream news media in nearly all of my classes and it’s generally agreed upon that he does not and should not adhere to journalism practices. He’s a comedian, and a great one.
That being said, Stewart is allowed (in my book) to conduct a softball interview if he agrees with his guest, which he clearly does in this one. That’s the beauty of his show. It is, as Stephen Colbert puts it, “ironically detached from the news.”
I also hope everyone who hates the book so passionately has actually read it for the non-global warming chapters if nothing else. Try to keep an open mind when reading it, and always research the topics for yourself afterwards.
Hi, Sam,
I’m sorry but it seems to me that it is you who has completely missed a crucial point of this post.
“If The Daily Show is able to practice such willful ignorance despite the easy availability of the facts, what are we to expect from the general public? How are we going to achieve public education when, for whatever reason, even Jon Stewart is propagating such facile nonsense?”
A show can be both “ironically detached from the news” and informed. Indeed, Stewart’s show is based on smart ironic treatment of a topic. It’s not smart to get the facts wrong when it is easy to get the facts right. As such, he gets a failing grade from the perspective of the “beauty” or nature of the show itself.
I encourage you to continue to develop your skills for critical analysis.
I have alot of respect for journalism students. I expect that you think media matters. I also expect that you think accurate information is necessary to ensuring public knowledge and decision-making regarding crucial social issues.
cheers
Martha,
I do see your point here, but I feel that you have missed mine – possibly because I did not properly explain myself.
The point I was trying to make is that this article is holding Jon Stewart to the same standards that one might hold to any other news source. This implies that greenfyre uses The Daily Show as a news source himself, which Jon Stewart himself may very well be ashamed of.
“I also expect that you think accurate journalism is necessary to ensuring public knowledge and decision-making regarding crucial social issues.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I would not categorize The Daily Show as “accurate journalism,” nor do I expect it to “ensure public knowledge.” I look to news networks, shows, newspapers, or other publications for this standard. To use Stewart as a news source and hold it to such journalistic practices, to me, is ridiculous. Surely if Conan O’Brien conducted this interview on his now dead Tonight Show, some of you might not be nearly as outraged. If Stewart was an anchor on CNN and conducted this interview, however, I would absolutely question his motives.
I do thank you for your encouragement of my studies, as not many people do. Journalism is a dying profession and not many people appreciate attempts to revive it.
I hope that you continue to critically analyze news sources as well, though we all may have overly scrutinized the “hard hitting” practices of an comedian.
Thanks.
[…] 2: Geenfyre’s Mike Kaulbars writes: That’s right, Levitt doesn’t even have to BS the interview because Stewart does it for […]