I tend to agree, but I could see a case to be made that there is a usefulness in having a libertarian-focused version of those shows. Stossel provides a much more educational point of view because (a) that’s what his show allows (time allotted, format), and that’s because (b) that’s what he’s good at. The Judge is able to cover more of a current news angle that I think there is a need for as well.
But I’m glad you mentioned Woods because that guy is like Stewart’s kryptonite. I can almost guarantee Tom is the last guy Stewart would ever have on his show. Woods is sharp, and extremely articulate and eloquent. He “gets it”…meaning he’s never caught in a situation where someone is talking past him. And he knows his stuff, and can not only break things down so understandably and so quickly, but he can do so in a way that rivals Stewart’s smug “well-of-course-this-is-the-way-it-is, Stupid” way of presenting things. That’s one of Jon Stewart’s and Bill Maher’s greatest assets is the ability to pretend their opinion is not only the obvious and correct view, but also one that everyone agrees with…such that if you disagree you’re either an idiot or insane. This wins over a lot of people, and it’s the way they are able to defuse of lot of debates that they would otherwise lose. Woods has his own way of doing this that I find even more entertaining.
And if you combine that with his understanding of economics and vast knowledge of history, he’s simply devastating…but even more so to “whiz kids” like Stewart and Maher who pride themselves on being smarter than everyone they go up against. I say Woods is their kryptonite because he’s about the only guy who could totally defuse their modus operandi. I can’t think of many others who can even play their game, let alone beat them at it.
I think it’s very much the same for Murphy and Krugman. Bob is so the perfect matchup for Krugman…he’s certainly one of the most qualified, well-versed Austrians active today, but can also talk the mainstream econ game, he’s up to snuff on the econ blogosphere, and it goes without saying that he’s well-read on Krugman’s writings, as well as his MO. That alone would destroy Krugman, but you throw in Murphy’s “get it” factor, his ability to break things down like Woods does, and his personable nature…all the things Krugman doesn’t have…he could probably come out ahead even if he didn’t know anything.
It works because Woods and Murphy are nerds in the best kind of way…they know their stuff, but they also understand people and how they think, which is why they are never caught off guard with an opposing argument. They truly understand the arguments others make, and the way of thinking that leads to those notions. This, combined with their people skills is a large part of what enables them to break things down for the layman so effectively. (It’s also why they’re able to recognize and acknowledge they’re nerds). In contrast, guys like Maher and Stewart are the nerds who got picked on in school and then developed not only a “funny guy” defense mechanism, but also a “I’ll get back at them” mentality such that they’ve now become the bullies. Stewart tries to be a bit more subtle about it, and in public plays up the jokester role more than Maher, but he’s just as much of a jerk. The same almost goes for Krugman, except he’s still just as awkward as he was during puberty, and doesn’t have the social skills and isn’t funny enough to handle anyone in an in-person format, so he retreated to academia and hides behind his keyboard, doing his bullying from a blog…(or possibly even worse, hiding behind his wife and letting her do the bullying for him…haven’t seen any proof of this, but I’ve heard the rumors, and it’s not exactly hard to write someone else’s name in a byline).
But Krugman is still just an academic nerd that most people don’t know and don’t care that they don’t know. Stewart and Maher on the other hand have turned themselves into leftist icons, with drone followers so mindless that even Maher himself gets fed up with them. Those two have become used to winning approval through their clever bullying-through-humor, so they have a need to always come out on top…either win the debate point, or, if that can’t be done, just make fun of the other guy…which works even better than actually being right. This is why you rarely (if ever) see anyone even close to Woods’ caliber on their shows. They (admittedly) won’t book them. As a producer from The Daily Show said, they “never book conservative pundits, we stick with conservative politicians, sometimes high-profile news anchors, and sometimes religious leaders”…in other words, people who have a professionally-tied public image to maintain, and therefore can’t play Stewart’s game. He’s never gonna put himself up against anyone who participates in the same arena and can therefore go toe-to-toe.
…Which is why I think Murphy has a better chance of debating Krugman than Woods does of ever getting on The Daily Show or Real Time.