Six Degrees: Jon Stewart speaks, makes news media uncomfortable
By
Sorry I didn’t get this posted yesterday, y’all, but better late than never, right?
From The Washington Post (internal links omitted):
No Joke: Jon Stewart Takes Aim At 24-Hour Cable News ‘Beast’
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 26, 2008; Page A20
DENVER, Aug. 25 — Jon Stewart ripped the cable news networks Monday as a “brutish, slow-witted beast” and castigated Fox News in particular as “an appendage of the Republican Party.”
. . .
The Comedy Central funnyman touched a nerve when he criticized journalists for having off-the-record dinners with politicians, such as a barbecue in March at John McCain’s Arizona ranch. “That colors your vision of them so clearly and so profoundly,” he said.
When New York Times columnist David Brooks and others protested that there was value in getting to know candidates privately, Stewart stood his ground: “I don’t say access is useless. But the more you get sucked into it, the more you become part of that machinery.” And when another reporter accused him of courting the press at the breakfast as skillfully as any officeholder, Stewart called the comparison “crazy.”
. . .
When you read that article, I hope you’ll notice Jon’s criticism of Fox News and, perhaps even more, the response from the unnamed “Fox News spokesman”. Poynter Online’s Jim Romenesko makes the interesting point that Kurtz violated Washington Post policy in allowing the “Fox News spokesman” to comment anonymously. I have to agree, what possible justification could there have been to grant anonymity? Bizarro.
Anyhow, The San Francisco Chronicle promises us a podcast of this event sometime this week. We’ll keep our eyes peeled. It would be nice if the mainstream media would do their jobs well enough that Jon would have nothing to criticize; barring that, I’ll settle for hearing him take them to task.
Related posts
26 Comments
August 26th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Sing it, sister.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 11:27 am
What an amazingly sweet pic of Jon!
And yes, I can’t wait to see what Jon and Stephen do to keep the mainstream media in check.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
These next two weeks of shows are going to be awesome and so what this country needs to shake off some of the seriousness of the election this year, and remind people to laugh a little. I love reading articles about Jon sticking it to the media. He’s da man!
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Jon Stewart? Critical of cable news networks? I had no idea.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
i want video!! or at least audio?? please… SFChron please hurry…
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
AmAAAAAzing!!
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I sure hope TCR does something on this, particularly the anonymous FOX News response!
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Here’s even more silliness from Kurtz: when asked, he said he did not violate Washington Post policy because he was quoting a spokesperson (who declined to be named) rather than an anonymous “source”.
Um … what? I’m loving the comments to this post regarding Kurtz’s “clarification” of the policy.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
What? I feel like I’m Alice in Wonderland listening to the Mad Hatter. Haha!
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Yeah, it’s pretty hilarious. I mean, I do *kind of* understand what Kurtz is trying to say about spokespersons, but his article was just poorly written, then; it didn’t sound like he was stating Fox’s official position, he sounded like he was getting an off the cuff reaction from a pissed off Fox employee. And if the Fox spokesperson didn’t want to say who he/she was, then (1) that doesn’t sound like an “official” position to me and (2) why did Kurtz think it was necessary to print it at all? It’s not as though Jon’s statement demanded a response (and, last I checked, Fox had a pretty big microphone all its own if it felt the need to hit back), and I don’t know that the rest of the MSM got solicited for their reactions to Jon’s criticisms before Kurtz wrote his column. I thought part of the point of the WaPo attribution policy was that if you’re going to take pot shots at someone, you’ve gotta man up and say who it is that’s talkin’ smack.
Anyhow, the linguistic gymnastics have been amusing me today.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
very cool.
money, power, entertainment, enjoyment, responsibility, pride, morals, commitments.
I always feel like Jon simplifies things too much, although it’s not like he’s got a cadre of other people saying the same thing. outside of TDS/TCR people and liberals knocking Fox, criticizing the the way of the media is really not that popular. even so, I can’t claim to agree with Jon completely.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Hi tiger,
Maybe I’ve been living in LA and watching TDS/TCR for too long, but I don’t think the majority of people take the media seriously (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) anymore. I have both conservative and liberal friends who look elsewhere for their news (BBC, The Economist, various newspapers). These networks just feel like a dinosaur format that are desperately trying to be hip in a flashy, non-substantial way.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
no, I don’t think your perceptions are wrong. I guess a different way to frame what I was saying is to consider that Jon’s fighting against something a lot bigger than just a few news channels. people generally like to be entertained and enjoy themselves. usually, I find it pretty boring to deal with primary sources. so, it ends up being a matter of markets and what gets ratings. which is kind of the point of companies anyway. if people didn’t watch it it wouldn’t happen.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Ah ok. I think you’re saying that people recognize it as entertainment more than hard news, but they don’t go as far as criticizing the media for taking on this role. Am I on the right track? Maybe I’m just being dense today:) I probably should get more sleep, but that won’t be happening this week!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I’m afraid I posted a comment awhile back, but it never came through. I think you’re saying that people recognize that these 24-hour news channels do not dispense hard news, but they accept it as entertainment and do not contest it. I definitely agree with you on this point. Supply and demand. Sigh…
August 27th, 2008 at 7:36 am
I think it also has to do with what Jon has said on many occasions: that there isn’t enough news to go around a 24-hour news cycle, so a lot of time has to be filled with speculation and following dead celebrities and whatnot. And while it’s true that they have to earn ratings and market shares, it seems that they’re more concerned about ratings than reporting the news that should be reported, asking the questions that should be asked, etc. And Faux News calling themselves “fair and balanced” is a freaking joke and everyone knows it.
Plus, I think it’s cowardly that the article quotes Jon Stewart, but not the contrasting opinion from FNC. It’s sloppy reporting, and only emphasizes Jon’s point.
(Still, I get the impression that if the FNC overlords found out one of their rank and file talked to the New York Times, even to defend them, this person would be fired for sure.)
Reply
August 27th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I agree that the news as it is done now is unnecessary and pointless. but the companies wouldn’t do it if they couldn’t get advertisers, and they couldn’t get advertisers if people, the little people at home, didn’t watch. now I allow that the news channels purposely do things to make themselves indispensable. but I don’t really agree that the news channels are just shoving all this news at us just to be desperate. if it was getting ignored they couldn’t last.
the reason to be mad a the journalists is because they are directly in the position to make a change. but each individual within journalism, even the big guys, has very limited power. I think of that female reporter who was I believe in Afghanistan, and she was on TDS a few months ago. she got a great and responsible story about Marines, but they didn’t want to run it. if people lapped that stuff up, it would have been shown. but people are lazy and prefer entertainment and easy-to-digest news, and that is at the root of our information problem currently.
(I am writing a little forcefully but I don’t want you to think I’m mad (especially not at you Lucy!) I just don’t watch the stuff myself, avoid the frustration…got other better things to do.)
Reply
August 27th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
While I agree that the 24-hour news networks will show “fluff” stories if they think that’s what people want to see, recent polls seem to indicate that people like fluff but not the excessive coverage of it.
Although the news networks do “serious” stories as well, the stories seem to be culled verbatim from press releases and other news outlets without any sort of input or further investigation on their part. It’s lazy, that’s what it is. It’s easier to read off a news website or blog, or comment on a celebrity’s SUV weaving through traffic on the way to court and shrug it off by saying “that’s what the viewers want” than it is to do any sort of actual investigative reporting. Like you, tiger, I don’t watch the news channels because I can get the exact same thing from my Yahoo! search engine.
But unlike you, tiger, I’m not willing to give up so easily. Jon Stewart went on Crossfire, ripped them new ones about how they spend valuable time just yelling over each other, and what happened? Crossfire got canceled. You see, things can change when you call Tucker Carlson a d**k on-air. :)
August 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I love Jon
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“But being out of touch with mainstream America is nothing new to Jon, as evidenced by the crash-and-burn ratings of this year’s Oscars telecast.”
ooh yeah wow. I can see why they wanted to remain anonymous, with a zinger like that.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Actually, weren’t the ratings slightly better this year?
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
The ratings were bad, but that was more due to the fact that there were no movies nominated that the general moviegoing public really recognized. And honestly? While I like some art-house and foreign films, I can’t say I can remember half the stuff that won Oscars this year. Nonetheless, I guess the Fox spokesperson forgot that Jon was freakin’ NOMINATED for that Oscar telecast–and he sure deserves that nomination.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
And he was nominated for an emmy for the performance!
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
The ratings for the Oscars had been steadily declining for YEARS before Jon even stepped up to be a host. Blaming Jon for low ratings is like blaming a random voyager on the Titanic for making the ship sink. Mother Theresa could’ve hosted the Oscars and nobody would’ve watched.
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Haha! Nice analogy!
Reply
August 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Does FOX do anything but howl, attack and whine?
I’ve listened to foxes in the night — they know how to be clever and silent. The news station is an insult to the animal.
Reply