The failure of journalism (especially cable news, which.. I guess.. is journalism) in the current financial crisis is all too similar to its failure in the run up to Iraq, and indicative of a much larger cultural problem. Stewart's genius — and public service — is that he gets this.
Watch the whole thing (un-cut-for-TV) here.
James Fallows, who I respect, describes it this way:
"Yes, it is cliched to praise Stewart as the "true" voice of news; and, yes, it is too pinata-like to join the smacking of CNBC.... But I found this -- the Stewart/Cramer slaughter -- incredible.
I thought Stewart, without excessive showboating, did the journalistic sensibility proud.
Just before leaving China -- ie, two days ago -- I saw with my wife the pirate-video version of Frost/Nixon, showing how difficult it is in real time to ask the kind of questions Stewart did. I know, Frost was dealing with a former president. Still, it couldn't have been easy to do what Stewart just did."
Posts
13 comments:
I saw this. It was awesome. Is it just me though or does it seem like Stewart has a scary amount of power. Remember what he did to Tucker Carlson a few years ago? Pretty much destroyed his career. I didn't often agree with Tucker politically, but he is a genuinely nice guy. Not a monster.
couldn't have been easy to do what john stewart did? his job is to trash people he doesn't like on tv ...
i did enjoy the video, though
interviews like that aren't easy at all... especially for a comedian, whose every impulse i'm sure was to break the tension with "a fart joke." especially since his normal show is pre-written with conveniently spliced newsclips.
his job isn't to trash people — it's to point out media/political absurdity, and to do it without appearing snide or mean. it's why he's captured the middle so effectively in a way that hannity and huffington can't. he pulls of the self-deprecating i-care-about-what-you-care i'll-make-fun-of-anyone-who-deserves-it thing perfectly, with limitless source material.
even though he's obviously left, his base isn't so much right or left rather than people who simply want the political discourse in america to be elevated — something that cable news, conservative talk radio and political realities consistently undermine.
his power is interesting, though.
and by interesting i mean risky, like all media power.
and by "interesting" i also meant — he has an odd way of elevating the public discourse while making fart jokes.
i thought this interview simply demonstrated the potential seriousness of what he does. it's very therapeutic to me — frustrated by the modern media environment.
do you not think he went too far? i know its entertaining to watch someone get embarrassed, but you can call anyone out after the fact and point out what they did wrong, especially in something as unpredictable as the stock market. i think that the fact that jon stewart ends up doing this almost entirely to right-wing politicians and celebrities that he clearly despises is inappropriate. to me, its like now that bush isn't the president, he's finding other people to go after. isn't putting more troops in afganistan when we just decided as a nation that we don't want more intervention and increasing spending at the same time also absurd? pointing out absurdities is one thing, but he should be able to make good points without trying to destroy someone's reputation. thats why i like colbert report better ... there's no hostility because he knows he's on comedy central.
but i do admire him for trying to make the media more honest ... i would just be more impressed if he also went after keith olbermann, katie couric, rachel maddow and the like ...
I don't think Stewart was piling on Cramer's bad calls — rather the appearance that CNBC was a part of the problem after that video came out of Cramer delighting in how easy it was to manipulate the system.
The "fued" only started when Stewart took exception to Rick Santelli's calling homeowners "Losers." Cramer fired back, and then the media turned it into contrived "war of words," which Stewart of course played up (openly sarcastically).
I really didn't enjoy seeing Cramer get embarrassed. It makes me uncomfortable.
But I don't think it's fair to say Stewart only goes after the right wing. I know his show obviously leans left, but he hits both sides. He disses Obama's celebrity and spending, and has lately almost daily been comparing Obama to Bush.
Bush simply made himself a target more than any politician since.. well.. Clinton, but did so with an insulting, "you're either with us or against us" message what Stewart attacks most.
The absurdities he highlights are in message more than policy. He doesn't pretend to be a policy wonk, and avoids firm positions because he knows it's in his best interest.
And I think he does go after MSNBC types, especially Chris Matthews and Olbermann.
I have a harder time with Colbert just because he never breaks character and it makes my head hurt. But that's only a stylistic preference.
you're probably more right than i am cuz you know more about it, but i still have a gut feeling everytime i watch the daily show that jon stewart has an agenda ... maybe thats just me being too assuming.
that's fair. i'd be more likely to miss it as i often feel like he's saying what i want someone to say.
That was definitely a de-pantsing.
But what was so damning was the video evidence that Cramer couldn't even try to deny. I didn't see it as Jon Stewart being unfair or wielding too much power, but rather with a simple confrontation of facts. Cramer had a chance to correct the record, but was unable to because the charges were true. Ouch.
I do agree with Kurt's last comment--I did get the impression that what Jon was primarily doing was advancing some agenda of his own rather than simply engaging in the pursuit of journalistic excellence and accountability. Though, that's not to diminis the fact that Cramer probably needed to be taken down a notch or two anyways.
Post a Comment