Listening to the debate between Fox New's Conservative anchor Bill O'Reilly and the darling of the liberals Jon Stewart below something stuck me as very important. Ofcourse, like all things by Stewart, this one had a message in the laughter and both guys wanted to emphasize the message.
O'Reilly is righteous and angry about many wrongs in the world and he thinks that criticizing them is important. He seems to have a serious view on life and that is the view that many people have. Especially people who have gone through and faced some evils. They become passionate crusaders for their cause and are agitated by what they stand for.
In contrast, Stewart is the intelligent, cynical and critical guy. The sort of guy who has lead a safe, protected life but yet knows the evils in the world. Even Stewart is fighting against the wrongs but he hides his passion in humour and satire. He believes in taking nothing seriously but he is serious that his actions should be positive and stands by what he thinks.
Ofcourse, I dont know wether stewart and O'Reilly actually confirm to the stereotypes and the truth might be in between. However for ease of thinking, it is easier and simpler to see such people divided into these two categories.
So which one is better? Ofcourse it is easier to fall for the funny Mr. Stewart and obviously one would prefer to have a cup of cofee with him rather than Mr. O'Reilly. However, such an action might hurt people like O'Reilly who are also doing something positive. If such people recognize this situation, they might change. But it seems very unlikely to a person not ever having had a personal injury to get into the mindset of the passionate advocate and might remain just a funny guy like Stewart.
I guess in the end it really doesnt matter. It is just like religion, different paths to the same truth which can never be realized.