Comedian Jon Stewart had some very unfunny words for the media on Monday, calling cable news networks “a giant monster” and urging newspaper reporters not to fall prey to the 24-hour news cycle.
“I can’t believe that, as reporters, you would walk into a ‘spin room’,” he said, amazed at the journalists’ willingness to swallow the bullshit that the campaign and candidates spoon feed them. “How can you keep talking to people who are lying to you?” he asked. “This loveless marriage [between reporters and politicians] has to be unconsummated.” As I said in yesterday’s post, this criticism came pretty much at their request, after they wide-eyedly asked Stewart — who, by the way, is a comedian, in case you weren’t aware — what could be done to restore print journalism to its former place as the apex of political discourse.
And while he did claim that the 24-hour news channels are ruining political discourse, he did not “declare his love” for newspapers. Not exactly. He did have a lot of great things to say about newspapers and for the reporters sitting around the table before him. But they were definitely not let off the hook.
He urged the print media not to buy into television and campaign spin and to dig deep into stories, even if it means burning bridges with sources and not giving readers exactly what they want. “I think my audience would like to see a naked woman smoking crack… but you’ve got to draw the line,” he said. It is true that Stewart plowed into cable news. He called Fox News’ fake news coverage a “the biggest ‘fuck you’ to people with brains.” But he also said that Fox does the best job of all the cable news networks, because “they have an idea,” an agenda, something through which to filter their information. Plus, they give their reporters “cover.” Their reporters are free to write their stories as they’ve been told to write them, without fear of reprisal, because the network makes sure that it’s the entity that takes the brunt of the fallout. On the other hand, his view of CNN seems to be a network just bouncing around, following the media cycle, trying to keep up with whatever the big story and the big angle is.“The antidote,” Stewart responded, “is to push back. The antidote is to create filters” to remove the muck from the information fish tank, so we can clearly see what’s truth and what’s political spin. Take the ball away from the cable news networks and do what they’re being paid to do. “You’re not on anyone’s team. You’re on our team, clearing our tanks.”
And these incredibly respected reporters — these paragons of print journalism — scribbled down Jon’s responses (which very closely resemble things he’s said a million times before), asked more questions with obvious answers, laughed at his many jokes, and would eventually go back to their hotel rooms to write parse out his funniest one-liners and write stories about how newspapers are great and cable news can suck it.
This is a funny and telling piece that illustrates why I believe Stewart “gets it” and the other do not.
It would be great if newspapers could go about collecting the news in a fundamentally different way than the cable news networks.
This line might not be new from Stewart, but it’s still quality. If he keeps saying it in new ways, perhaps one day it’ll be heard properly.
What I do not get is how Stewart can put together old clips from multiple sources to make a point by showing how someone lied or repeated themselves, meanwhile the TV nets cannot manage this function. In other words Stewart provides background and depth. The News channels just say what is happening at this moment. Thus you can lie incessantly and nobody ever calls you out.
The news channels have more resources than a comedy show!!! What do all these people do all day?
I’m reminded of Jon Stewart getting on CrossFire on CNN, blasting them mercelessly, and within 2 weeks, CrossFire was off the air.
He has the ability and the audience to rip the masks off the BS in the media and call attention to the man behind the curtain.
Jon Stewart has taken up the cause of the average American who is frustrated with the way that we are handed our news through traditional Media means.
Sure, he’s about as left-wing-leaning as they come, but at least he makes no bones about it. You know where he’s coming from. He’s not trying to fool anyone. Unlike the vast majority of Media Outlets out there. Which I think explains why he accepts Fox News for what they are. They too make no bones about their political slant. At least then you know where you stand in relation to the “story” being presented.
#2. The only obvious response to that would be the “real” media is controlled by Washington?…..nah,
I’m no tin-foiler.
John asked: “The news channels have more resources than a comedy show!!! What do all these people do all day?”
John, check with Ernest Borgnine !!!
The media companies are compelled to generate profits far beyond anything honest, grown-up journalism could produce. These companies can’t be reformed – they need to be bypassed.
I’m trying to do my part. I don’t watch broadcast TV or cable news, I look for other sources that seem to be talking sense. Basically, we’ve been orphaned – the news source we grew up with (I’m 57) are mostly gone, or transformed into idiocy.
#2, have you noticed the clips that the Daily Show uses. Some are grainy videos. All they are doing is going to YouTube and doing a search for quotes. Seems this technique is beyond the reach of CNN.
The decline in the quality of news on the air started when they were folded into the entertainment divisions of their parent companies and were expected to deliver profits.
For as long as news had been on the air, they were always expected to be a ‘loss leader’, trading quality of news for a net loss. When that changed, the quality of the news being reported changed as well (for the worse).
As long as the news is expected to deliver profits (and not the news), expect them to deliver utter and complete shit.
There is little news in our society. Mostly, it is “infotainment.”
I think there are two main, no maybe 3, ways to get news:
1. Magazines and journals.
2. Broad intake of left and right oriented news outlets and picking thru what makes the most sense.==Most recent good example of that was the Georgia attack on Ossetia. News was there but you had to weigh the merit of different sources presented.
3. Not believe anything you see or hear and just follow the money/power instead.
Biggest whores in the news world==white house press corp. Asshats every single one of them–including the old broad. They wouldn’t make it without the John’s lining up around the block for their pablum.
Clearly, Stewart makes total sense. His way of educating the masses is right – do it with entertainment. It’s a start.
The only way to BEGIN to educate the ignorant masses of Americans out there is like giving medicine to a baby. Wrap it in something sweet, or in this case, comedy.
The down side is GOP TV is also feeding the masses shit wrapped in bacon given by a clown. Wow, that’s a tough act.
We’re in trouble when local news shows do complete segments on network shows. That’s NOT NEWS!
Can we start by getting Nancy Grace fired from CNN Headline News – and replaced with, um, I dunno, the headline news report?
What good can get from a baby-eating, satan worshipping, man kissing liberal like John Stewart? FOX news is the sole source of information America needs and anyone who disagrees with our fair and balanced shows is a traitor to the American Race.
I don’t think I’d let Jon Stewart be the basis for running a news organization. He was probably laughing at all the people that cared about his advice.
Tim Russert would pull clips of people lying.
The big problem is the liberals in the media. They see themselves as advancing a cause rather than watching the government.
@Angel H. Wong
American Race? I didn’t know there was such a thing. I think you mean American People. Still, I hope you were being sarcastic.
#4 If a journalist doesn’t play court stenographer, the inside sources will pick another ethics free stenographer to regurgitate their spin.
And how long would a journalist last without the inside sources, anymore? Unless their aspiration was to cover the Peoria dog show, not long.
#16–Li==you have your finger on it.
Journalists don’t perform as court stenographers, only court stenographers do.
Let both necessary groups do their assigned duties and let the chips fall where they may. Its what “professionals” are supposed to do.
But they don’t.
Hopefully these two will get into politics at a later stage in their career.
Somebody HAS to properly replace David Palmer in 24 Hour Season Eleven. Using Wayne was not a stroke of genius.
#13 Wong, love ya man.
#15 ya it’s sarcastic
If only I could get these shows streamed in HD in Canada…
Have you ever read about a national or regional news incident in the local newspaper, then tried using the Web to find an article that covered that news from a different slant? Not gonna happen.
Newspapers get their stories from AP, Reuters and other wire services, because reporters are expensive. The only articles I see that seem to look at the news in a different light are on the BBC website, and sometimes on the Chicago Trib or the New York Times.
#19–Floyd==this may or may not be a quibble, but the “news” should all be the same. The slant should appear on the editorial page where you find reaction to the news.
BBC is a good alternate source, and Dvorak has been posting Al Jezera lately.
In any case, consciously read the source to separate the news from the slant and you will be the active reader that democracy depends on.
#15
Yup! It’s sarcasm. Plus the mention of American Race is doing reference to the intro song of the American Dad cartoon.
Right wing, left wing, makes no difference, Stewart is right on. I started reading the papers when I was in fourth grade and over the past 25 years, I have noticed a major decline. Once the newspapers and TV news started letting the advertisers dictate what would and would not be covered, everything went downhill. You don’t necessarily need good inside sources to be a good reporter, you simply need to use your brain! Years ago, a local congressman was running for office and made a campaign filing that included two loans, one for $30k and the other for $15k that were to a man and his brother that had not been repaid to the congressman. The campaign filing also stated that the men were involved in a road rage incident with the congressman. However, the papers just regurgitated the filing and did not follow up on the story until the congressman’s handler quit after he had an outburst. Only then did the story get covered. If the papers would simply look through the local government records, record the graft and favoritism and back rubbing that goes on, maybe they could go back to being the third estate.
The Media has always been profit driven and the idea that Media has only recently had an agenda seems ludicrous to me, a quick peruse of old articles at the library from WWII era contains stories covering the wonders and achievements of Nazi fascism ignoring the obvious problems that existed. Still other newspapers took a different stand and condemned or simply reported on activities in Germany.
The difference now is in the concentration of ownership and lack of smaller independents.
J.C. Dvorak often comments how so many outlets have the exact same story, considering the small “gene pool” is this any wonder?
Sure, he’s about as left-wing-leaning as they come, but at least he makes no bones about it.
He’s NOT left-leaning. He’s anti-right, which isn’t the same at all. If you watch him regularly, he criticizes the liberals fairly consistently, mostly for being idiots. (The same thing he criticizes the right for.)
He DOES lean to the right, somewhat, in regard to middle eastern policy. He is a defender of Israel, albeit a critic of many of Israel’s most obnoxious behaviors.
explains why he accepts Fox News for what they are. They too make no bones about their political slant.
You apparently think they’re being facetious when they claim to be “fair and balanced”. They are not. There are a lot of people, including the “FirstName-LastInitial” paid shills who show up here, who believe that their news is accurate, or worse, true.
I like the line from “Absence of Malice”, where Sally Field’s character responds to her boss when he asks if her report was accurate.
“It was accurate”, she says, “But it wasn’t true.”
Or maybe I got that backwards. As if anybody is reading this anyway.
At least then you know where you stand in relation to the “story” being presented.