Jon Stewart, the smug but clever host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," is once again getting bouquets from bloggers and media critics, this time for his adversarial interview of Chris Matthews. The "Hardball" host thought he was appearing on Stewart's show to plug his book, "Life's a Campaign," but found himself defending it, as Stewart assailed his work as "a recipe for sadness," in essence, an endorsement of an unethical life philosophy. Matthews obviously felt blindsided, and personally attacked. Is Stewart an Ethics Hero, standing up for values and virtues in opposition to a book that celebrates calculation and artifice? Or was Matthews a victim, lured into a confrontation that he didn't expect and mistreated by his host?

There is no question that it felt superficially satisfying to watch a celebrity author find himself being challenged rather than fawned over during a routine book-plugging appearance. Still, if Matthews was unprepared for Stewart's negative reviews, "The Daily Show" treated him unfairly, and Stewart abused Matthews like Rosie O'Donnell abused Tom Selleck on her old talk show, lambasting him as a stand-in for all NRA members when he thought he was going to be talking about fluff. True, there is no guarantee that an author will receive a pleasant reception to his book when he appears on a show. On the other hand, Stewart seldom goes beyond gentle kidding in his interviews, especially with reliable liberals like Matthews. Matthews had every reason to expect kid gloves, and got brass knuckles instead. For Stewart this may have made good television, but it was also dirty pool.

But wait a minute! Chris Matthews invites people on his show and attacks them mercilessly. Doesn't he deserve the same treatment? Isn't it justice for him to have the tables turned? No, it isn't. Matthews' guests walk into his den fully informed on what they are facing; the show is called "Hardball," after all. It is never an ambush. Matthews was ambushed.

Stewart has done something like this before, when he appeared as a guest on CNN's "Crossfire" and proceeded to tell hosts James Carville and Tucker Carlson that their show was a disgrace. That time he ambushed his hosts, and as with his latest mugging, he got a great deal of praise and publicity out of it at his targets' expense. His "Crossfire" conduct nonetheless unethical, compounded by outright rudeness that he managed to suppress with Matthews.

Stewart does not get any special dispensation from the Scoreboard because his critique of Matthews' book was supposedly on ethical grounds. To begin with the most obvious observation, for a Hollywood comic who hosts the Academy Awards to claim to condemn a book because it extols perception over substance charts new waters in deep hypocrisy. Moreover, Stewart's accusation that the book encourages deception is misleading. "Life is a Campaign" is about human nature, and how politicians and leaders use their understanding of people to succeed. In this it is a distillation of history and experience, and thus a legitimate exploration of the methods of every significant leader from Alexander the Great and Jesus to Genghis Khan, George Washington and Gandhi. There is nothing unethical about that, nor about Matthews' contention that what these and all leaders know about human relations has real-world benefits for those who want to achieve their life goals. Matthews understands how leaders lead, and is quite correct that their methods are valuable tools for anyone who can master them.

A former staff member for Tip O'Neill, Matthews is an unabashed lover of politics, the ancient art of getting things done among competing interests. People like Stewart distain politics and government as dirty enterprises engaged in by nasty people, but their contempt is more the product of ignorance than principle. Is being upbeat and positive around others when you feel depressed and pessimistic deceptive? I suppose so, but the experience of our species is that leaders cannot freely express their doubts without forfeiting the confidence of their followers. Matthews' observation that most people are willing to be used and exploited as long as they feel appreciated and needed isn't cynical; it is simply accurate. His lesson that nobody is truly in favor of a level playing field in all human endeavors isn't an appeal to the worst of mankind's instincts, but rather a legitimate assessment of human behavior. And his book's message that we achieve success by recognizing human nature and acting accordingly is not unethical but undeniable.

Ethics are doomed if they lose all mooring to reality. Is making yourself look good for a job interview deceptive if you usually are a slob? Should you stifle personal opinions that you know will annoy a potential ally? When you are trying to impress someone and win their support, is it wrong to appear more interested in his conversation than you really are? Stewart's attack on Matthews, if sincere and not just calculated to get attention from the media, was rooted in the misapplication of abstract ethical standards to reality, a combination of arrogance and ignorance. People like Matthews strive to accomplish important things; the Stewarts of the world stand on the sidelines and mock them for making the effort.

On one point of criticism, however, Stewart must be given his due. For Chris Matthews, the single talk show host most likely to interrupt guests and make it difficult for them to get a word in edgewise, to write a book that celebrates listening to others as a necessary skill is mind-boggling.

Read your own book, Chris.