Right - journalism used to be about truth-squadding. Now it’s just repeating each side’s allegations, in the illusion of “balance”.
Which is to say that you might as well lie, because nobody in the press will report it as such.
Actually, I think Stewart’s point is that these two guys, who are undoubtedly intelligent, have this daily forum to hash out issues and provide a useful service to the American people and electorate.
But instead of sitting around and analysing issues - determining what are the relevant issues/problems and advantages/disadvantages with particular policy initiatives, they just get pure partisans from both sides who have a vested interest in utterly and completely avoiding any real analysis of the issues, and instead they sit around and spout and respout talking points, while taking every opportunity to drop ad hominem insults (at least the Repubs do).
As a result, the American people know little more at the end about the issue at hand than they did at the beginning. They only know that there are two extreme viewpoints to the issue, not who is hurt or helped and by how much. Oh and they know that Kerry is a traitor.
And in this way Stewart is suggesting in strong terms that they have abrogated a certain public trust, an opportunity to help people really understand the issue in non-partisan terms. Instead, it becomes the political equivalent of professional wrestling - you know exactly what each party is going to say before he says it, and the outcome is not of any particular interest.
Yes. Some of that you said rings of truth. However, if Crossfire is simply a blurring of news and entertainment, and Jon doesn’t like that, what exactly is The Daily Show? Strictly entertainment? I mean come on…“Your show is hurting America”. My God. I thought Stewart was about to cry. Then we are back to square one: Why should he (a comedian) expect validity when criticizing the news media.
Has he read a newspaper who’s editorials are 90% bash Bush/Love Kerry and hacked on them for spewing partisan crap? No.
Yes. Some of that you said rings of truth. However, if Crossfire is simply a blurring of news and entertainment, and Jon doesn’t like that, what exactly is The Daily Show? Strictly entertainment? I mean come on…“Your show is hurting America”. My God. I thought Stewart was about to cry. Then we are back to square one: Why should he (a comedian) expect validity when criticizing the news media.
To your first question, Crossfire claims to be a serious show, handling the news in a serious way. It’s on CNN, the ‘news’ network, fer crissake. ‘The Daily Show’, OTOH, makes no bones about being comedy. So it comes down to truth in labeling.
to your second question, why shouldn’t a comedian expect validity? since when does a sense of humor not coexist with an ability to reason?
For my money, Stewart’s show has more value than all the ‘news’ shows out there - not as a news show, but simply because he’s willing to do what evidently nobody else will; ask journalists to do their $@#%! job instead of giving us distraction-of-the-day. Secondly, by using humor, he can get us to step back from the usual foam-at-the-mouth rhetoric and (hopefully) get us engaging each other and trying to actually solve the problems we face, rather than just win a debate for ‘our side’.
To your first question, Crossfire claims to be a serious show, handling the news in a serious way. It’s on CNN, the ‘news’ network, fer crissake. ‘The Daily Show’, OTOH, makes no bones about being comedy. So it comes down to truth in labeling.
to your second question, why shouldn’t a comedian expect validity? since when does a sense of humor not coexist with an ability to reason?
—ok. he can have validity. But I will treat his opinion of crossfire as comedy. Not as a serious commentary on news media.
For my money, Stewart’s show has more value than all the ‘news’ shows out there - not as a news show, but simply because he’s willing to do what evidently nobody else will; ask journalists to do their $@#%! job instead of giving us distraction-of-the-day.
—Exactly! His show has value because he asks journalists what to do? So he’s not a comedian then? Comedy comes second? Then he should treat his guests as he expects CNN to.
Secondly, by using humor, he can get us to step back from the usual foam-at-the-mouth rhetoric and (hopefully) get us engaging each other and trying to actually solve the problems we face, rather than just win a debate for ‘our side’.
— I disagree with this. Only because we all know what Jon Stewart’s “side” is. His opinions would hold more water if I thought his “commentary” or “comedy” was partisan.
—ok. he can have validity. But I will treat his opinion of crossfire as comedy. Not as a serious commentary on news media.
Shouldn’t you decide whether his comments have merit based on their content, rather than on who said them?
Shouldn’t you decide whether his comments have merit based on their content, rather than on who said them?
–sure…and I value Bruce Springsteen’s political views as much as I do his music.