The conversation between the two men was not only disappointing but very unintelligent as well.
For starters, Stewart appeared to serve "political batting practice" to Carter, offering light and overtly simplistic questions - a shame considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of major importance and in need of necessary overdue debate.
Case in point: Stewart, asking whether it would be necessary for an Arab with "street-cred" to step up to the plate and rally people around the cause of peace, walked right into Carter's seemingly crowd pleasing but intellectually-light response. Said Carter: "We've got now a man that can bring peace to the Middle East...Barack Obama." Of course, to suggest that the election of an American man can bring about peace in a section of the world ripped apart by death, war and destruction is overly simplistic and misleading. But it's also another thing to suggest that Obama can bring peace when his campaign rhetoric suggested nothing of the sort - in fact, his rhetoric towards Israel has mirrored Presidents before him (and peace hasn't exactly soared in the Middle East these last few decades).
But the triviality of the conversation didn't end there. Stewart asked Carter why it was important for the United States to lead in the peace efforts. Perhaps if Stewart had inquired with any vigor, his answer would have been self-evident. But, alas, there is the mention of the United States' annual economic and military aid to Israel; nor is there any mention of previously failed peace agreements; nor is there a discussion on the United States' role in the peace process both now and in recent decades.
Instead, Carter, sounding ever like a politician, described a dire situation where, without a strong US influence and US pressure, the ultimate goal of peace may never be reached.
Again, to agree or disagree with Carter's statement or any other foreign policy decision is important, but another point entirely. My point is that Stewart's inquiries into the situation did little to inform the public, mirroring his exact complaints against his media counterparts. The fact that the Israel-Palestinian conflict gets such little actual debate on other media networks makes Stewart's lost opportunity only more disappointing. It is even worse to consider that Stewart's entertainment niche is (correctly) identifying media obsession with the trivial, and the damaging effects it can have on a public in need of relevant information.
Hopefully, Stewart devises a montage mocking his own interview with President Carter for an opening act this week. Because that was all this conversation was good for.
No comments:
Post a Comment