The Atlantic: Why did Jon Stewart give Tom Cruise a pass on Scientology?

[Steve Timko]

I was wondering the same thing. Stewart was such a fan boy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/tom-cruise-jon-stewart-the-daily-show-scientology-mission-impossible-rogue-nation/399956/

[Adam Bowie]

He's never really given any Hollywood stars a hard time though has he?

In any event I wonder if that wasn't 'off limits' as far as Cruise's PR people were concerned.

On 30 Jul 2015 21:58, "Steve Timko" <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

I was wondering the same thing. Stewart was such a fan boy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/tom-cruise-jon-stewart-the-daily-show-scientology-mission-impossible-rogue-nation/399956/

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jon Delfin]

Seriously? And why are so many people looking to tear Stewart down as he ends his tenure? This is very odd to me.

[Bob Jersey]

Adam Bowie, to Steve Timko:

He's never really given any Hollywood stars a hard time though has he? 

In any event I wonder if that wasn't 'off limits' as far as Cruise's PR people were concerned.

Matt Donnelly at TheWrap (link) quotes a source that his handlers are clamping down on the "personal" stuff. A CC mouthpiece denies, and no comment from Stewart or, f'rinstance, Fallon where viewers were treated to a Cruise lip sync.

B

[Dave Sikula]

Or maybe he didn't ask him anything because he was there to promote a movie and not Scientology. Unless we expected that he'd ask a Christian guest (out of nowhere), "Hey, what's the deal with that coming back to life thing? Was Jesus a zombie, or what?" To some of us in the atheist community, Xenu isn't that far removed from Jehovah. There was no reason for him to go there and I'm glad he didn't. Who cares, ultimately?

--Dave Sikula

[PGage]

I think the Atlantic's criticism is exaggerated, but so are the defenses of Stewart.

With response Dave, if the Atheist Community is unable to detect a difference between Scientology and the Presbyterian Church, then it suggests atheists can be as blind and irrational as christians. The expectation for questioning Cruise is not based on the implausibility of Scientology's theological claims (if so, then it would be appropriate to ask if we would expect Stewart to grill a Catholic celebrity on the logic of transubstantiation). The predicate here is the documentary "Going Clear", which was on HBO just this April, and has recently been nominated for several Emmys. The documentary does not make fun of Scientology's theology, it alleges clear instances of abusive and potentially illegal behavior, many specifically revolving around Cruise himself. As noted in the Atlantic piece:  

"The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise."

Not asking Cruise about these allegations in his first media availability since the doc aired is more like not asking a Catholic celebrity directly implicated in the pedophile controversy about those charges, than just a policy of not getting into an interview subject's religious beliefs.

OTOH, The Atlantic does seem to overstate its criticism of Stewart, almost as if it has never actually seen an episode of TDS. The Peabody's and other critical acclaim have not been based on Stewart's interviews of celebrities, but on his political satire and media criticism. Stewart has only one peer in interviewing non-fiction book authors (Colbert), and is among the best in interviewing politicians and journalists. But he has long been at the bottom when it comes to interviewing celebrities, and his Cruise interview was just as trivial and meandering as the vast majority of his celebrity interviews have always been.

If Bill Cosby were doing a media tour I don't think Stewart or really most other reputable outlets at this point would not focus on the rape charges. I don't think Cruise is quite at the Cosby level, and it is a judgement call how to handle him. IN a six minute promotional interview it would be tough to pivot from "how do you do all those stunts?" to 2.5 minutes of "do you really let the church of Scientology pimp girls out to you, and then punish them if they say anything critical about you or the Church?". If Stewart had said to Cruise's people "he can come on the show, but we are first going to do a segment on "Going Clear", and then ask Cruise questions about it during the interview" I would not have criticized him (though of course Cruise would never have agreed to that).

The real problem, also noted by The Atlantic, is that Mission: Impossible is a Viacom property, as is TDS. I doubt Viacom ordered Stewart not to embarrass Cruise, but under the circumstances, it would have been best practice if TDS had found some way of making the conflict of interest transparent on the episode, and perhaps noted that, as is almost always the case with celebrity interviews, they had decided to keep the interview light.

If the Atlantic gives Stewart's Cruise interview an "F", I would give it (grading on the typical TDS celebrity interview curve) a "C".

 

 

--

[Kevin M.]

Stewart was never going to be critical of Cruise to his face because Stewart is leaving the Daily Show but not retiring from show business.

I keep thinking about the conversation that doesn't happen after mass shootings and famous suicides... the discussion of mental health that is much needed in this country. And the conclusion I reached is that the conversation will never occur on mainstream media because too many people within the mainstream are beholden to Scientology, and Scientology regards psychiatry as "an industry of death."

My problem with Going Clear was it didn't reveal anything new... it didn't go far enough. And there is no motivation for Stewart to go after Scientology either, certainly not by confronting an actor.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Jon Delfin]

The trouble is, it isn't news. Cruise has been on with Stewart many times in 16 years, and I disagree that the documentary changes the situation as far as plugging a movie is concerned. Granted, I haven't read the article, so my commentary is possibly lacking foundation. For instance, is there anything in it about Stewart not interrogating any of the other famous Scientologists who have come to hype their product besides Cruise?

[Steve Timko]

The Emmy-nominated documentary makes the topic ripe for discussion.
Some of the information in the documentary had been reported before
but a lot of it was also new. This is the first time the information
has been made available on such a broad basis. And Tom Cruise is
practically the pope of Scientology.
Stewart is the one who wags his finger at the news shows for their
shortcomings. It's fair he gets some finger wagging in his direction
for his short comings.

[Adam Bowie]

I'm not sure to what extent the information in the documentary was new - it was nearly all based on the excellent book by Lawrence Wright which was published last year. Indeed to my mind, there was as much shocking material in the book that was missing from the documentary. (Side note: Stupid British libel laws mean the book was never published in the UK, and I had to import a US edition. Furthermore, libel laws in Northern Ireland have to date prevented a UK TV airing on Sky Atlantic who have the rights, and instead there was a limited cinema run of the doc, notably excluding Northern Ireland).

And while Cruise is heavily involved in Scientology, he's not truly a spokesperson for it. From what I've read about the subject, there's not a specific allegation of Cruise locking someone up against their will, or subjecting ex-members to abuse - the really nasty side of the "church." If there was something hanging then fair enough, and Stewart should have gone after him. But otherwise it would have been akin to talking about peodophile priests with a guest who's Catholic (the analogy doesn't quite work). Cruise isn't really the Pope of Scientology - that's David Miscavige. And an interview with him, I'd love to see.

Anyway, I suspect it's all moot because as I suggested and seems to have been confirmed, Cruise's PR people were never going to let it be a subject. Given that his main reason for being on the show was to promote a film, and Stewart basically *never* lays into celebrity guests, then it would have been massively out of character for him to have done so in this instance. There have probably been celebrity guests in the past who believe in homeopathy, but he probably wouldn't get into that with them either. 

Adam

[PGage]

n Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Jon Delfin <jond...@gmail.com> wrote:

The trouble is, it isn't news. Cruise has been on with Stewart many times in 16 years, and I disagree that the documentary changes the situation as far as plugging a movie is concerned. Granted, I haven't read the article, so my commentary is possibly lacking foundation. For instance, is there anything in it about Stewart not interrogating any of the other famous Scientologists who have come to hype their product besides Cruise?

As I say, what made this particular Cruise appearance on TDS different from previous ones was that "Going Clear" (which, as others have noted in this thread, almost by definition did not have anything new in it since it was based on a previously published book) made specific allegations about Tom Cruise, not just Scientology in general. It would be uncool to ask a Muslim actor during a celebrity interview if he was a terrorist just because some Muslims have committed terrorist acts. But if a well respected documentary had recently accused the actor of being a leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, then I think it might be more expected that one might make inquiries.

Again, in context I don't think the failure to bring it up is a huge deal, but I would have liked to see some way of mentioning the potential conflict of interest.

[Melissa P]

No interviewers are asking Tom Cruise about Scientology. Here's why that's not surprising. from The Washington Post

 

http://wapo.st/1JVTT3y

[PGage]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Melissa P <takingup...@gmail.com> wrote:

No interviewers are asking Tom Cruise about Scientology. Here's why that's not surprising. from The Washington Post

 

http://wapo.st/1JVTT3y

So, no, Ms. Yahr does not really give us the reason why Cruise is not being asked the S questions, though I agree the fact that he is not is not surprising. The problem with her column is she is lumping when she should be splitting. Yes, of course, celebrity interviews are a two way-business transaction; the celeb is promoting a project (something they are usually contractually obligated to do - they don't get paid all that money just to have fun for 12 weeks with other attractive people), and the interviewer gets either ratings, or access to other celebs who work for the same company who will give them ratings down the line. Under such an arrangement, it would be rude, or "un-cool" to ask Ben Affleck about his divorce or Jennifer Lawrence about unauthorized naked pictures, when those people are on your show just doing their job and helping you. 

Tom Cruise however is in a much different situation. He has been publicly accused by a credible source of being a direct party to unsavory, immoral and perhaps illegal activity. He is much more similar to Bill Cosby's situation than he is to Jennifer Lawrence's.

Note I said Cruise was closer to Cosby, not that he is in the exact same situation as Cosby. I don't think Cosby could have appeared on Letterman in the last 6 months and not get asked about his allegations (indeed Cosby cancelled a Dave appearance within the last year, presumably because he knew he would be asked). It is impossible to believe Cosby could be on TDS and not get asked The Question. Cruise is in more of a grey area between a celeb who is either the victim of crappy behavior by others, or has engaged in crappy behavior themselves, and a celeb about whom the preponderance of publicly available information suggests has committed horrific and illegal acts. While I think it would be uncool to ask JLaw about her pics, and irresponsible not to ask Cosby about his apparent serial rape behavior, I think that, for a celebrity interviewer, either asking or not asking Cruise the tough question is defendable. I would have gotten a bit of a thrill if Jon Stewart had told Cruise and their shared Viacom overlords that he was happy to have Cruise on the show, but he should be prepared to ask a question or two about the charges in "Going Clear". Cruise would have backed out, Viacom would have been pissed but, what would they do, fire him? But I am not disappointed if, as seems to have happened, Stewart concluded that ignoring this kind of thing is part of the corporate circle jerk that is his job, and perhaps this is a good example of why he has decided that, like Danny Glover, he is too old for this shit.

[Henry Fung]

Cruise has also not been accused of a crime (even by the documentaries, which state that while services were procured by the Church to make Cruise happy, they don't allege Cruise did anything illegal), and TDS is an entertainment program. On a morning show run by the news division, I would be more concerned about omissions. It was right for the Today show to bring up Martha Stewart's alleged crimes while she was chopping onions, because Today is nominally a news program. No one expects news from TDS.

[PGage]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Henry Fung <calw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cruise has also not been accused of a crime (even by the documentaries, which state that while services were procured by the Church to make Cruise happy, they don't allege Cruise did anything illegal)... 

Well, I described this above as: "He has been publicly accused by a credible source of being a direct party to unsavory, immoral and perhaps illegal activity". I see the legality of the behavior Cruise is accused of as being more in question that you apparently do.

Here is how the Atlantic article describes the episodes in question:

"The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise."

I do think the author of the Atlantic article is putting the most extreme interpretation possible on the allegations, but...I also think that, were the allegations accepted at face value, and were the relevant statutes of limitation not expired (I don't know about that one way or the other) a prosecutor so inclined could probably find charges to file against Cruise. In any event, these are serious issues, that directly involve Cruise, and go far beyond questions of the form "why do you belong to such a weird church?", or even "how can you belong to a Church that does bad things?".

[Steve Timko]

When Jon Stewart appeared on "Crossfire," he criticized them, saying
"Crossfire" was a great opportunity to get the politicians off their
marketing strategy. Yet he allows Cruise to do his marketing strategy
unchallenged. As far as claims he has no news pretensions, then why
does Stewart focus on the Veterans Administration problems or continue
his lame pursuit of some conspiracy about the run up to the Iraq war.
Judith Miller easily toppled that conspiracy theory while Stewart left
her real journalistic felonies unexamined.

[Joe Hass]

My apologies for the tardiness (did anyone else know raising an almost two-year-old takes up a ton of your time?).

My fundamental question is why did this interview occur in the first place? This is the equivalent of Dave doing an interview with someone on a promo junket in early May. Did no one at TDS have the power to say, "You know, we're kinda booked up for the rest of the run, and we're sure you kids can find loss of other outlets for your wackiness."?

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 15:59 Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

I was wondering the same thing. Stewart was such a fan boy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/tom-cruise-jon-stewart-the-daily-show-scientology-mission-impossible-rogue-nation/399956/

[Tom Wolper]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Joe Hass <hassg...@gmail.com> wrote:

My apologies for the tardiness (did anyone else know raising an almost two-year-old takes up a ton of your time?).

My fundamental question is why did this interview occur in the first place? This is the equivalent of Dave doing an interview with someone on a promo junket in early May. Did no one at TDS have the power to say, "You know, we're kinda booked up for the rest of the run, and we're sure you kids can find loss of other outlets for your wackiness."?

I think Cruise is still considered a rare and major "get" for a talk show. It may be a vestige of his past success or he could still have a big following that makes it worth having him on TDS.

[PGage]

Perhaps that would have made sense almost any other month than this one for TDS; but given that  he was inside of his last ten shows. It seems unlikely he really needed or wanted or ratings goose now. I am more likely to believe Viacom wanted the marketing push for MI.

[Adam Bowie]

It's worth noting that JJ Abrams also got into the final run, ostensibly to talk about MI for which he's a producer. In the event the discussion was mostly about Star Wars. 

Mind you, has Stewart admitted, he's a big enough fan of Abrams to have wanted him on the show anyway.

Adam

--

[Steve Timko]

New York Times piece mentions Stewart's declining ratings.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/business/media/jon-stewart-a-sarcastic-critic-of-politics-and-media-signs-off.html
Sent from TypeMail

[Bob Jersey]

Alex Gibney weighs in (link), in a guest column on THR, obviously disappointed... he notes the "sly inside joke" in the volcano-jumping proposal by Stew...

B