Our Blog: where do you stand?

Mistie says:

Fri, March 13, 2009 at 10:22:pm

I just find it hysterical that liberals are beginning to cannibalize their own…and that anyone truly listens to either one of these “entertainers” (and I use the term loosely) as if they actually ever spouted anything of value. Proof positive that America wants to be entertained instead of enlightened.

anon says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 8:32:am

I agree with Mistie. You should only get your news from credible sources like Fox News, your Catholic priest or a Christian newsletter.

Dwight says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 9:17:am

Anon, the fact that you just identified Jon Stewart as a news source to make a point, only reinforces Misty’s point.

Conservatives swim through liberal mainstream news sounces all day, every day. I cannot be avoided.

Then they elect to go to all those non-liberal news sources as a respite. It IS a balance of sorts.

You are right Jon Stewart, the markets aren’t a f***ing joke.

But then again, journalism isn’t a f***ing joke, either.

You are right Jon Stewart, Cramer used his influence to talk thousands of people into making investments that bankrupted them.

Whereas you, Jon Stewart, used your influence to talk millions of people into voting for a president who is well on his way to bankrupting a nation.

The difference between Jon Stewart and Cramer?  I dunno. Cramer has an ounce of humility in him somewhere.

Mistie says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 9:18:am

Heh heh. I also find it hysterical that 1) anonymous isn’t actually brave enough to sign his/her name to that comment; 2) in his/her mind, the only choices for news are Jon Stewart and Fox News. Uh, really? He/she must have a really bad cable package.; and 3) he/she feels the need to slam particular religions, which have absolutely no part in this discussion.

Goodness, don’t y’all ever deviate from the “How to Slam Everyone Who Doesn’t Believe Exactly Like Me” playbook? This act is getting old.

Dane M says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 10:26:am

I think the point that Mr. Stewart was making with this interview was not one surrounding religion or political affiliation. It’s the same message that has been a focal point of his show since the beginning. The media, which has already been labeled in these comments more than once as “liberal,” is not doing its job. Their job is to report the news. Not to speculate. Not to sensationalize. Not to capitalize or gain from public deception.

Maybe it would be helpful if everyone turned their political blinders off for a second, and watch the video based on how Stewart presses Cramer on CNBC’s role in reporting financial news. I feel like if that happened, Mistie and Dwight, you might find a lot more enlightenment in it than you thought.

Dwight says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 10:33:am

Oh, I’ve seen it, Dane. I’ve seen it several times. I watch Rachel Maddow. I listen to Bill Press on talk radio. I’m always looking for a better idea.

I watched the interview several times.

And each time I watch the interview I see a self righteous hypocrite lecturing a fellow self righteous hypocrite about the dangerous echoes of making a living by trying to make the news entertaining to reach a broader audience.

Uhm… Hello?

Mistie says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 10:52:am

Now this is an intelligent debate - I love it!

Dane, I completely understand and respect what you’re saying, but I’m right there with Dwight. Maybe if Stewart pressed everyone and called on the carpet goofy conservative (and yes, there are a ton!) as well as liberal ideas/actions, I’d be more generous. But he doesn’t. He’s an entertainer, and it’s way more entertaining to do what he’s doing.

But, my overarching point is that many, many people count Stewart as a main source of news. It’s way more fun to be entertained than enlightened, and that’s what many Americans are looking for these days. Check out the latest stats on the sheer numbers of high schoolers who can’t identify the most basic U.S. historical and geographical facts. We’re getting lazy and complacent, and that’s what scary to me. Not the way to ensure viability of your country for coming generations.

Dane & Dwight, however, give me hope - we need more thinkers like you two. Keep it up!

Christi says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 12:06:pm

I’m weighing in with a slightly different bent… Stewart is talking about major issues with an audience that might not otherwise care. Case in point, my DH hates mainstream news, but he gets a laugh from Jon Stewart. My 26-year-old brother watches regularly, but wouldn’t be caught dead watching CNBC or CNN in front of his friends. I would argue that there’s an intersection between entertainment and education… and that entertainment can serve as a gateway for people who are just dipping their toes into political discussions.

Dwight says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 12:30:pm

“would argue that there’s an intersection between entertainment and education… and that entertainment can serve as a gateway for people who are just dipping their toes into political discussions.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

And if you change the word “political” to “market”, I’d still agree with you wholeheartedly.

I have no issue with either man trying to make a buck entertaining the masses.

But Stewart lecturing Cramer about duty and the consequences of confusing information distribution with entertainment?

Gah. [insert trademark Scorcese brains spattering against the wall shot here]

Next up on Comedy Central: Borat lectures “Clark Rockefeller” about the perils of using a fraudulent identity.

Dane M says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 1:53:pm

I think the distinction that needs to be made between Stewart and Cramer is their outlet. The Daily Show appears on Comedy Central, a station famous for talking puppets, South Park and washed up comedians’ last gasp at pop-culture relevance. Jim Cramer’s Mad Money appears on CNBC, which is one of very few financial news networks. Despite the fact that Cramer’s show is intended to be entertaining, it also carries the weight of the station that it appears on. Stewart, on the other hand, goes against the grain of what Comedy Central is. He presents the news, albeit a slanted view of the news - but never claims otherwise.

That being said, anyone who receives their news exclusively from one source - be it The Daily Show, CNBC, CNN, USA Today, etc - should not consider themselves informed. In a world where media is now in a struggle for survival (print) or competition for ratings (5+ 24 hour news networks). Infotainment is becoming the rule now, rather than the exception.

Dane M says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 1:54:pm

I agree with you (and Jim Cramer for that matter) that it is sad that the Watchdog of the Watchdog of our Government, which is what the media is supposed to be, comes in the form of a “variety show” on Comedy Central. Yet, Stewart has done it before, and hopefully, he will continue to do it. Maybe eventually, other people in what we should call “the actual media” start performing their roles.

Jerry Gennaria says:

Mon, March 16, 2009 at 5:41:pm

Perhaps we should view Stewart as a kind of modern court jester—the wise fool. The jester, at least in literature, could say things to the king that no one else, including the king’s counselors, could say—partially because of the comedic nature of his role and partially because he was apparently the only one in the court without an agenda.

Patrick Lunsford says:

Tue, March 17, 2009 at 10:15:am

Political leanings and “pot calling the kettle black” arguments aside, I’m glad to see the discussion come back to debating the purporse, expectations and expanding/narrowing definition of journalism. Some comments point back to a topic that alarms me: the market growth and increasing acceptance of subjective, opinion-oriented news organizations (both liberal and conservative). Financially, it seems to make sense ... but I worry about a society that only listens to perspectives it wants to hear and engages in arguments by only listening to one side. Truth has no voter registration.

m says:

Tue, March 17, 2009 at 2:20:pm

Mistie- I respectfully disagree with your initial comment that both Cramer & Stewart don’t provide anything of value. While I think Cramer is scummy, he is extremely knowledgeable about the markets. Sadly, he hasn’t been using the knowledge in a way to protect Americans, but rather putting on an “entertainment” show filled with nonsense. And Stewart I think provides a tremendous service. The line from the Cramer intvu I thought was so appropriate & indicative of the fact that Stewart DOES know his role was when Stewart said: “We’re both snake-oil salesmen to a certain extent. But we do label it snake oil here.” Stewart is an entertainer & makes no claim to the contrary.

m says:

Tue, March 17, 2009 at 2:21:pm

I have a lot of problems with the state of our nation & the state of journalism (I work in the field).  I’d prefer if people kept fully informed on government & economics & the treasury & foreign relations, using a variety of sources, instead of just their favorite network or website or newspaper.  It would be fantastic if people could take in ALL aspects of an issue and then make up their mind.  Should Jon Stewart be your only source of news?  No, I don’t think so. But, just like anyone who only reads one paper or watches one show, I DO think he’s a better source than NO source. And, really, I DO think we should give credit- most people, even when watching a far left-leaning or right-leaning program, know fully when that opinion is biased… and they know that Stewart is not giving you the straight-forward news.

m says:

Tue, March 17, 2009 at 2:23:pm

As for the interview with Cramer– speaking to your point Mistie– I don’t think it makes sense to judge this particular interview based on the fact that Stewart doesn’t “press everyone.”  He doesn’t NEED to press ANYONE.  He’s an entertainer, doing a faux news show, who for this instance decided to step back, actually put on a more “journalistic” hat and do what no one else has dared to do– call out a guy and a network that are doing a genuine disservice.  And Dwight - I have a feeling you’ll say – as you alluded to earlier in your comment about getting people to vote for Obama– that both Cramer AND Stewart are doing a disservice.  But, the difference is that Cramer is billed as a man to listen to for expert financial advice.  Stewart is NOT billed as someone to listen to for ANY kind of advice– political or otherwise. If you were somehow swayed to vote for Obama because of something Stewart said, you have bigger problems.

m says:

Tue, March 17, 2009 at 2:30:pm

Finally Patrick- as I mentioned above, I don’t think it’s fair to label a news organization as subjective or opinion-oriented, based on its subjective, opinion programming.  These companies need to make money & those programs are often what brings in most of it– keeping the rest of the “news” portion afloat! W/o money that O’Reilly brings in, Fox could not send reporters on the campaign trail to cover EVERY candidate during the election. Same for MSNBC. People can watch what they want- my only hope is that they take what O’Reilly says, but also listen to Olbermann & vice versa, then toss in context from Nightly News or 60 Minutes.. & the only way we can do that is to make sure the news part of journalism is as accurate as we can possibly make it.  Some days are bigger battles than others. But, we can only do our part- and hope that others catch on.

Patrick Lunsford says:

Tue, March 17, 2009 at 5:15:pm

“m”—my labelling might not be fair, but I’m not sure the majority of news consumers properly make the distinction between the opinion show and the next half hour that’s just news. Are people watching Fox because they think it’s the best news source, or do they watch because they think it’s the organization most supportive of their views? We can hope people are listening to O’Reilly and Olbermann, but I’m willing to bet a large chunk of my quality low-biller salary that people pick one and ignore the other. (and I don’t really want to hear about how Fox covered every candidate after watching its pundits continually tear down certain candidates, such as Ron Paul).

m says:

Tue, March 17, 2009 at 7:16:pm

you’re may be right- most may not listen to all sides, but i think it’s unfair to claim they don’t know the difference bet news & opinion. they may still *choose* to base their own opinions on subjective shows, rather than news, but that’s another issue & one i think journalists need to fight daily- by making their product not only factually accurate, but as compelling as the opinion shows can be (say what you will, but both oreilly & olbermann are well produced). NO ONE is unbiased & the majority of ppl don’t keep up enough on 99% of issues to know all sides. the best we can do is hope anyone who wants to become civically involved is at least wise enough to put aside daily biases & choose what’s best for the overall community/state/nation.  i like to think people are intelligent enough to do so.  naive maybe, but i’m hopeful, while still trying to engage in these convos enough to keep things at the forefront - because when we STOP talking- that’s when there’s real trouble.