Thought this was a great take by Glenn Greenwald:

There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Exactly! People who took out bad loans should face exactly the same consequences for their bad decisions as folks like John Thain, Dick Fuld, Chuck Prince, the management of AIG, the management of Countrywide, the management of Bear Stearns, the management of WaMU, Alan Greenspan, E. Stanley O'Neal, etc....

How is this determined? Is it a comedy show because Stewart says it is?

You're reciting Stewart's line that makes him untouchable in these kind of contexts. I don't buy it.

What if Fox News hired a hack comedian to make quips after news stories? (I don't watch Fox News, so for all I know they do this). Does that make them a "comedy show" and thus, exempt from any criticism?

Well, that...or the fact it's on comedy central and 90% of what is said on the show is to get laughs.

you left out the other great part of it

Exactly what consequences are these? Greenspan has had his legacy tarnished a bit. Wiki said O'Neal is on Alcoa's board after leaving with a $160M golden parachute and Prince walked away with $150M for his few years in this mess and still is an analyst for Citi.

SI

Isn't that what people here said Fox and Friends was? Only there, the argument was that it made it okay for them to doctor photos, not just "have a slant".

THE SHOW BEFORE HIM IS PUPPETS MAKING CRANK PHONE CALLS!! :D

pretty sure that's a big hint that he's not a "serious" journalist

Fix your sarcasm detector.

Definitely - "bad" economic behavior needs to punished no matter where it happens.

-Bad mortgage buyers should be DQ'd from the credit market via their bankrupcys. They can live like roomates in shitty apartments like the rest of us did when we couldn't afford property.

-Bad bank employees that made their company's insolvent should never work in banks again. They suck at it, just like the bad mortgage buyer. It's a little different here because the company isn't inherently bad, only the people that work for it. There's a strong tendency to personify corporations in these contexts - but corporations and banks aren't people.

-Bank employees who broke the law should go to prison forever, and should have every cent of their net worth forfeited

-Bank employees who sold customers crap, in such a way that it let to profits for the bank and ruin for the customer (if this is even possible - this is just a theoretical example), should be rewarded and promoted. This isn't "bad" economic behavior. It's excellent economic behavior. The stupid customer drops out of the economy, and the smart banker survives. That's good.

EDIT: Crap, Pass beat me to it...

How about if they hired a couple of shiny faced morons to spread propaganda with a morning variety show format and called it, say, "Fox and Friends"? It's not really news just because it's on a station called "Fox News", right?

SI

It's impolite to call people who lie, liers.

I'm not familiar with that show, but it sounds like a great example of someone on the right trying to get away with the same nonsense, absolutely.

Fox News is just entertainment, just like Comedy Central. They really aren't that different. And that's fine, but we should try to see it clearly. They're two extremely biased news shows using comedy to get away with stuff that "regular" news can't.

In that context, someone relying on Foxnews as their news source is just as silly as someone relying on the Daily Show.

The problem is "actual journalists" are so few and far between these days.

Oh, crap, that's what that noise was. Today I got to play the internet equivalent of that old guy driving down the highway with his blinker on :D

SI

Jim Cramer got destroyed, and I'm not seeing all the defenders point that Stewart did anything wrong. He brought up very true points that anyone, conservative or liberal, should have bought up.

Some stuff drifted populist, yes, but to say the whole interview with that is bull.

Besides, someone should get angry, if the media actually was as pissed off as me most days you would be seeing companies being torn a new one on a regular basis.

:lol:

hxxp://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221516&title=jim-cramer-interview-outtake

for those that haven't seen it yet. in 3 parts

Dude, if you're trying to claim there is no difference between Fox New sand Comedy Central, then you're just refusing to live in reality. I mean, give me a fucking break.

Stewart must have been pissed when Crank Yankers got canceled, as he couldn't rely on that hollow line anymore.

He was basically saying two wrongs make a right ;).

Are we talking about in terms of actual news reporting or their purported standing in the new community? ;)

SI

lol

crank yankers was a poor execution of a good concept (the prank calls). they could have got say...russell brand to do it or something, and skip the frigging puppets

Somebody else made the comparison, I think to try to "trap" me into defending Fox News. Because obviously anyone who doesn't worship John Stewart must be into Bill O'Reily. But both are absolutely entertainment first and foremost. When someone says, "The Daily Show is Just Trying to be Funny", I just think that "Fox News is just trying to be entertaining". It's funny to be that people get worked up over Fox News having a conservative bias - they're just filling a niche, for cash, just like the Daily Show.

Mostly, I just think Stewart's a douchebag and it's disappointing me that someone with so little talent has this kind of success.

I hate celebrities that try to be politically relevant...When they actually succeed, it's just too much....That would go for either side of the political spectrum, though there's just more hollywood on the liberal side.

Not really. "Loser" homeowners basically made one bad decision - taking out a stupid mortgage. Everyone else I listed made a lot of bad decisions. In fact for some (O'Neal and Thain spring to mind) it could be argued that they made only bad decisions.

The moral of the story being, folks, that if you're going to fuck up, fuck up big and often, make sure you're going to take a lot of other people down with you, and don't be contrite about it. :D

Fox News is a news channel masquerading as entertainment.

The Daily Show is entertainment masquerading as a news show.

I can see how one would get the two confused.

Anyway, didn't Fox News, last year, develop a show to be like the Daily Show, only with a conservative slant? Is it still around?

I wasn't trying to "trap" you into anything, I was just referring to this story: (POL) FOX News Alters Photos of NYT Reporters - Front Office Football Central -- maybe I missed an earlier comparison, but I was just responding to:

problem is that fox news markets itself as a news channel and has reporters at current events like a news channel, etc

note that the daily show & comedy central do none of these things.

look at the names of the networks - it's right there

I wonder if the Daily Show is the first "Comedy Show" to win:

-Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language
-2 Peabody Awards for their election "coverage".
-3 TV Critics Association Nominations (two wins) for "Outstanding Achievement in News and Information".

I think that's a good way of putting it.

And The Daily Show has won journalism awards, but I don't think Fox News has won entertainment awards....So who's the bigger fraud?

the argument has been made in this thread that that's not a reflection of the content of the daily show insomuch as its an indictment of maintstream network "news" coverage (let alone cable news coverage)

But Jim Cramer doesn't do that. He does mention the stocks he got wrong and goes into detail on how why he got them wrong. I've seen him do an entire show on some of his back picks and the mistakes he made.

As for the interview, I saw it last night and thought both of them looked bad. Cramer sat back, took it, said "Yes, you're right" while Jon Stewart preached, ranted and reminded me a lot of Bill O'Rielly with how often he interrupted Cramer just so he could rant some more.

I watched the unedited version just now and thought they both looked better. Some of the questions and lines Stewart said were made clear (some lines, in the edited aired version, sounded like set-up potshots). They showed a LOT more of Cramer talking and answering questions in the unedited version. There was even a part near then end where Stewart was apologetic for how Cramer became the face of the anger and spite directed at CNBC in general.

Yeah, Cramer took a beating (on CNBC's behalf), but whoever edited that interview to be broadcasted did a horrible job if they were trying to edit it for good content. If they were editing it to have a 20 minute long rant and preach session to get the plebs all riled up, then job well done I guess.

That's kind of the point. The Daily Show can do things differently because they're "not news" (as they constantly remind us and some people actually buy) - which actually makes them BETTER news. But they're clearly news.

Comedy is actually a pretty effective tool to tell news, if you're trying to make point (and be funny). SNL figured this out years ago. Daily Show has just taken it a step further into legitimacy, while still pretending to be SNL. (I dont' recall Chevy Chase doing serious interviews with politicians).

The entire Fourth Estate, I think.

A lot of those calls weren't funny some a few were outstanding. District selectman Tony Deloge <3

Do you have investment accounts molson? What is your rate of return over the last three years?

If it is negative 20% or worst, I officially dub thee stupid consumer.

If not, congrat you either were too poor to have significant investments, or you are a smart investor.

The defense 'everyone' lost money the last three years is as invalid as the assumption we should ever encourage shady banking as 'smart' for hoodwinking people. Buyer beware, hell ya, ultimately you need to protect yourself... but misrepresenting a financial product that is crap, guess what that is not just a clever trick, it actually may be FRAUD! And the cases where it is not, it has certainly crossed over the line of ethics.

Malicious competitive behavior is actually bad for the economy... it may be good for individual actors, but it can have a negative net effect. It certainly doesn't have the social darwinism effect people think it will. More slick bankers pulling fast ones and being praised for it leads too... oh wait we are already there dammit!!!

If you ask me, I could say anyone who didn't see the banks balances going explosive is an idiot. Except I know I shouldn't blanket judge people, especially when it took me years to convince myself. (And yes I still fail to hold back my vicious streak, as in right now in my attacking you when you don't deserve it)

We need to stop sweeping bad behavior under the rug and act like cruel and corrupt economies inevitably correct things to normal. Smart and ferocious economies do inevitably correct, but we don't have that with the number of crooks in board rooms and the SEC and Congress. I get irritated with all the rich being lumped into the evil CEO group, and all the poor being lumped into the dumb borrowers group... we end up with generic and useless solutions like 'raise taxes on everyone over 250K' or 'bailout all mortgages' because we don't separate out correct behaviors or necessary strategies from our blanket stereotypes. We need specific, targeted, and transparent attacks on the problems in our economy.

Again, not entirely directed at you, just a general attitude. Sorry I need to get some sleep, getting cranky!

The problem I see is that MOST news channels masquerade as entertainment. CNN certainly falls into this (I mean, come on, they sell T-shirts of their headlines, which just pushes them to make funnier headlines...), as does my local newspaper and most of my local news outlets. It's just absurd how far the media has fallen.

Did someone stay up too late last night watching Syracuse-UConn? I know I did :D

SI

I put 100% of my extra money in the last three years into student loan debt (debt that I was arguably pretty stupid to take on - depending on how my legal career turns out - but I pulled myself out of it). I've been living WELL below my means in a shitty apartment, and I'm now saving for a down payment on a house (I will wait until I have 20% at least). My only investment account is mandatory retirement pension contributions through my public employer - an account that is run pretty conservatively.

The decision not to save for retirement during that time was a great one. In 4-5 years (assuming we're not living in caves), I'll have a house with with a good amount paid off, be otherwise debt-free, and just slightly behind on retirement savings (or really ahead, since any money I had put in the last 4-5 years would have been wasted). A layoff along the way wouldn't derail the plan, because I have emergency savings to get through some time and worst case scenario, I can just dump my month-to-month rental lease and get roomates again.

As for "malicious competitive behavior" - I agree with you. I'm not smart enough to know where exactly to put that line, but I have no problem with pushing the "illegal" line over to include more behaviors. But I wouldn't want so far as to make sure the consumer is protected on every transaction. Don't we need stupid consumers in the American economy? We need losers to help grow the winners. I wonder what % of consumer transactions in the US are wasteful and stupid. When there's stupidity on both sides, where both sides are harmed, that when shit seems to get fucked up. I have no problem with one side simply out-smarting the other, if legal, and as long as there's a "winner"

(I cut off the rest where you keep pounding on Stewart's personality since it's not relevant)

But let's go back to this. No one is forcing you to defend Fox News but you're trying to put The Daily Show on the same level as something that purports to be a legitimate news entity. If these were called "Fox Politics" or "Cable Entertainment Network" or the "New York Times GossipPaper" - no one would have any issues.

But if you want to claim to be news, you have a higher ethical standard on what you carry. You can't pretend to be bringing news if you're going to just bring propaganda or just spread gossip. And you damn well better not be offended when someone calls you on it unless you have a good defense for your own actions (and not just attacks on those making the accusations)

SI

Well, exactly. For one reason or another (and I'm sure books will be/have been written on this) the Fourth Estate has abdicated its desire to practice good journalism, in general.

We all know what sells, and gets ratings, for the "news media" and in general it's not in-depth reporting on complex topics. Now, The Daily Show doesn't do this either (in-depth reporting on complex topics), but as a satire it gets mileage out of pointing out (with examples) how the news media drops the ball. It's just an added bonus that often that exercise delves a little into reporting on complex topics (oh the irony).

Further, the news media is very (perhaps overly) dependent on personalities (Stewart's initial critique of CNBC was about this specifically). A news media outlet can't afford to piss off a personality for fear that they'll stop coming on their shows, which results in a direct loss of ratings.

A very good example of this is a comparison of Maria Baritiromo's interviews with Merrill Lynch's CEO John Thain when a) he took over at Merrill Lynch (softball, fawning) and b) after he was ousted and the news about his bonuses and his $1 million bathroom makeover came out (prosecutorial, accusatory). When Thain mattered to CNBC as a guest personality, Baritiromo couldn't stop fellating him. When he no longer mattered to CNBC (because his reputation cratered), they were OK with taking the gloves off.

The Daily Show, of course, doesn't have this problem. If someone doesn't want to come on the show because Stewart pissed them off, it's unlikely to result in a net loss of ratings, because he'll get other guests. This is exactly what allows him (when he's motivated) to really grill some of his guests (who do come on the show) or skewer others (who refuse to come on the show).

But we get the news media we deserve. Americans, on the balance, stopped caring about in-depth (or even accurate) news reporting a long time ago, and the news media have simply responded to the market. It is, of course, incorrect for most news media to portray themselves as "fair", "impartial", "investigative", etc... but let's be honest - the average American doesn't give a shit anyway.

As a result The Daily Show caters to a segment of the viewing populace who agrees that the news media are full of shit and want to see them ridiculed. And let's face it, the news media are easy targets, since everything they do is recorded and The Daily Show, by all accounts, have an excellent clips staff.


The key thing is, however, that Stewart knows and admits all of this. He's not trying to be fair, he's not trying to be right, and he's not on some big crusade. He's trying to be funny, and exposing the funny in a way that appeals to his audience. And that is exactly what makes him different from the news media.

I agree with most of that. I think flere had it right that they're mirror images.

FoxNews pretends they're news, the Daily Show pretends they're entertainment. Neither is completely truthful.

If one "should" live up to certain journalistic standards, both should. Fox News, for what it pretends to be, The Daily Show, for what it actually is.

I agree 100%, and am actually glad for someone like Stewart. The media needs more of this grilling so that maybe they'll start paying attention to their responsibilities again.

On the points that the daily show can't/won't/doesn't go after obama... its true that most of the stuff they have done on Obama has been fluff, but I can remember a number of very good segments they've done where Obama has given a speech that is pretty much exactly the same as Bush and pointed out that when Bush says the same words, he is ridiculed, but when Obama says them he's a great speaker giving us hope.

This is my favorite daily show segment this year so far:




I had said before the election that I was worried that The Daily Show would just refuse to say anything about the left once the left was in power, and assumed that I would stop watching the show once Obama was elected. I've been pleasantly surprised often enough to continue watching, and loving the show.

That was awesome!

I agree, but I'm not hopeful that they'll return to their "responsibilities". The fact of the matter is that there's just not that much of a market for that kind of reporting anymore. I don't think you can survive as a cable news channel (to say nothing of newspapers) if you devote an inordinate amount of resources to the pursuit of quality journalism (and all that entails). Frankly, I think that's how we got to where we are today. The news media saw dollar signs in basically being entertainment, and rushed to get there. Now that they depend on that money, they can't go back.

After all, it's perhaps no accident that the consensus best reporting on the financial meltdown was "The Giant Pool of Money" (and its follow-ups), produced by This American Life and NPR News, both of which are generally not dependent on advertising dollars.

I thought it was great when they did that- especially since "Mess O' Potamia" was one of my favorite word plays on the show :)

Does that clip include where he has to dust it off and everything?

(Also, go check the clip from the day after Inauguration where he does the same exact thing with him and Rob Riggle talking about Obama and Bush using the exact same rhetoric)

SI

They're mirror images in that they're opposites not the same.

But I guess that's where we disagree. If one is claiming to be news, it damn well better have higher ethical standards than a show that pokes fun at the news.

SI

There was an episode last week where he really took Clinton to town for the botched PR event with the Russian foreign minister. He's warming up to it. And he's been consistently harping on the lack of spine shown by Reid and Pelosi with their majorities, comparing them (poorly) to their GOP predecessors.

Fair enough - do think though, that it's POSSIBLE that for an actual news show to avoid critisism by constantly claiming that it's comedy? Do you think that that COULD happen, but maybe just that The Daily Show hasn't crossed that line? Or in other words, do you think the Daily Show can go too far? Or as long as they're on "Comedy Central", they're not news, no matter what? Is their self-identifying label as "comedy" the deciding factor?

I only watched the unedited version which is why i thought cramer came off much better

At best Daily Show could be seen as news commentary. They really aren't reporting or breaking stories, so that level of journalism just isn't a part of their model. I'll give you that you can compare the show to news commentary shows like Hannity or O'Reilly, but that's not the extent of what it means to be a news organization. Fox, like CNN or MSNBC or even CNBC to some degree report on the day's events and look to break new stories. That makes them fundamentally different from a commentary show.

As to the Stewart/Cramer interview, it's a shame that it's being reported solely as a personal spat. The bigger issue is being completely glossed over so as to focus on Stewart "beating" Cramer.

That's a good distinction, but isn't FoxNews considered "bias" and sham news because of its commentary (Hannity and O'Reilly). When I hear people complain about FoxNews, those are the names I hear.

Is the regular, reporting news function of FoxNews similarly bias? I'd love to see an example of that.

So comparing The Daily Show to the O'Reilly Show - the difference is really what else is on the respective networks. John Stewart is protected by his environment, while O'Reilly is hindered by his. O'Reilly should hire some struggling comedians and move to Comedy Central (though they don't pay as much).

Scientists warn of 'irreversible' climate shifts :: WRAL.com: "Scientists warn of 'irreversible' climate shifts". Really? You really think this planet isn't going to reverse whatever trends are going on now? It's not going to get warmer, then colder, then warmer? We're not going to have more rain, then less rain, then more rain?

Just another example of where someone needs to be actually QUESTIONING what is being put out there rather than just regurgitating it.

I'm not going to make a huge list as I don't have the time or inclination, but there are several examples of bias in reporting. A few I remember are,

Ailes recently saying he sees the network as the Alamo against what's happening with the government.

Numerous examples of Republican lawbreakers identified as Democrats.

Carl Cameron, the reporter covering Kerry in 2004, filing false stories on how weak and French-like Kerry was.

Fox poll questions like, "Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards-- Bill Clinton or Al Gore?"

Numerous accusations of former employees saying management changed stories to better fit a GOP framing.

And on and on. I don't really care what the pundits say, just as I don't think an editorial page means anything compared to reporting at a newspaper.

But that's the whole point of the argument. That the guys cheering this aren't exactly capitalists. The traders there are all for capitalism for profits, but socialism for losses. It came across as distasteful to bash financially uneducated people who took out bad mortgages when the government had just handed out trillions in funds to save the companies that those traders profited from and continue to profit from.

The irony in Santelli-Cramer comparisions is that the two despise one another.

Just because global warming and climate shift is one of your pet rants doesn't mean that this new outlet didn't do their job in reporting this news.

Put the global warming politics aside, the use of the word "irreversible" is clearly scare tactics, which the media loves these days. Cue my segue into how the media scare tactics have helped make this economic meltdown much worse than it needed to be.

How exactly do you know that they are "socialism for losses". Santrelli opposed TARP. Why do you think the traders that were there do not?

What network they are on is definitely a major distinction in the two. I certainly have different expectations for journalism when I watch a news network vs a comedy channel.

But it's also what the shows claim to be. O'Reilly considers himself a hard hitting journalist and political commentator. O'Reilly aims to be a serious show discussing serious topics. Stewart does none of that. He's political humor and makes fun of the current events. This is like saying the Wall Street Journal opinion piece is on par with The Onion.

Those bashing Stewart for being some kind of hidden news agenda clearly don't watch his show. Serious interviews like last night come by a couple times a year. But hey, if you really think the guy who sends a reporter to a political convention to tell them he's with NAMBLA is on par with what CNN does, then we live on different planets.

I can't figure out if you are missing the larger point or if you're just deliberately being obtuse.

Regardless of your feelings about Jon Stewart, the larger point is that this is what any purported "news outlet" or journalist should be doing -- actually pointing out to the general public where they are being lied to and what the consequence of that is. The fact that an "entertainer" is one of the only people who will do this is really the crime.

Our news and media have abrogated that responsibility to the public, and the public is far worse off for it.

EDIT: I think this actually got covered more after reading more of the thread.

Well again, the news outlet was not ad libbing - they were just quoting the report. If they had added "irreversible" on their own, sure. But that's the crux of the story - 2,000 scientists think the effects of climate change could be irreversible.

For what it's worth, I am just nit-picking your example. I'm not saying their aren't countless examples of the media acting sensationally.

If Stewart is going to take the baton and do what "journalists should be doing" - shouldn't he be held to journalistic standards? If he's going to be admired and revered by the public and media for the way he slices and dices hypocracy, and does what CNN won't or can't do - why is it so unreasonable to insist that he have some credibility and standards, like we require from CNN?

He's doing a better job than the media, I get it. But is it a fair comparison when CNN has to be a news organization, and Stewart can just remind us that he follows puppets?

Santelli's paycheck is paid compliments of the U.S. taxpayer. Strangely I never hear him rant about that.

Because it's apples and oranges in my mind. CNN is a news organization. Stewart is a satirist. The fact that he can occasionally do good journalism doesn't mean that he can't be mainly a satirist. CNN may occasionally try to be funny, but I don't expect them to always be so.

RainMaker has a good analogy -- would you say that the Onion should have the same journalistic standards as the Wall Street Journal?

People can hold him to whatever standards they want. I think the majority of the public though don't tune into his show for hard hitting news. They tune in for a good laugh.

I went to a Daily Show taping in the summer of 1999. The guest was Margaret Cho. Maybe I've never gotten over that.

It was a very different show back then. It wasn't the iconic American treasure it's become today.

You could have saved yourself a ton of time and just typed "I don't get it" and then exited the thread.

The Onion is not equivalent to the Daily Show. Not even close.

If the Onion had legitimate interviews with politicans, printed articles about public figures saying inconsistent things, kept track of the accuracy of CNBC pundits - they'd be getting into Daily Show territory.

I figured I'd combine the two and respond to both since the responses can be layered. Warning- this is going to be long. I know I'm not an ethics professor but I think I have some decent legs to stand on here and I tried to give some good examples, but they may not be perfect...



First, the easy point- there are probably going to be a few posters who can enumerate Fox News's bias on a reporting basis, not just on a "commentary" show bias. You can google it easy enough. Yes, even the anchors for the basic news programs show bias. That's a gross ethical violation.

First and foremost there is the news. These are the nightly broadcasts, what CNN Headline News proports to have all day, and anything that prances around as "news". The closest thing I can think of to this is listening to the first 5 minutes at the top of the hour on NPR- I'm not talking about the second half of shows like All Things Considered and Morning Edition, where you get little couple minute analysis vignettes- these go down in a later section. Or that news show on PBS- you know, that one no one watches and is like watching paint dry. It's what the nightly news shows used to be before we had to have a segment with flashy graphics and always some sort of angle about how you can get ahead or how the man is screwing you or something.

Personally, I think AP and Reuters strive for this, tho, again, there are issues with individual reporter bias- I'm sure someone could point you to a counter-examples- lord knows there's at least one poster who likes to post every time he can find one. But, in general, this should be "just the facts".

These shows should be completely factually based and should try to present facts with no agenda. If you want to be known as a news agency- you have to be unbiased and bland, ratings be damned. If you don't- then you can't be a news agency and you get to fall under another category- see below. And, in this country, everyone gets a pony... :)



(The next two get flip-flopped but I think you'll see why when I expand on them as it was just easier to sort out the first group and then mention the other last)

Then we get to commentary- this includes O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, Madow, Matthews, Cooper, Blitzer, etc. I think there is a distinction to be had between some of these. The first six, two on Fox, one now on Fox after being on CNN, and three on MSNBC- those are distinctly political commentary, every one. I don't really know Blitzer as I rarely see him but I sense he also falls into this category. Frankly, I wish they all had to be banished off to their respective areas called Fox Politics, MSNBC politics, and CNN politics. (Then again, I'd rather MTV only be allowed to play music but that's never going to happen.)

For those, everyone knows that these are political shows. But you have to have your own venue for it and you can't call it news because it's not. It's pure commentary. Not only that, but they need to be held to a factual standard where facts are not distorted and "sins of omission" must be accounted for. And in this world, those previously mentioned ponies are unicorns...



The next one gets more interesting. I admit, I don't watch it as frequently, but Andersoon Cooper seems to stay mostly away from political wrangling and mostly does what I would call investigative journalism. This is not to say it can't get political, but politics is not the main story the majority of the time. It strikes me more as a Dateline show. They seem to me like news- they report indepth stories. Facts should be doubly checked but they are allowed a small measure of commentary due to the indepth level of the story. The commentary should be the conclusion reached from the indepth analysis of the fact, not based political leanings. In this galaxy those unicorns have wings...



Then we get into the fuzzy area- Fox and Friends, Morning Joe, that crazy lady on CNN (I think she would fit here)- stuff that masquerades as entertainment with a political slant. Frankly, this needs to not be on a news station whatsoever.

Being on a news station or in a newspaper or any other supposed "news" outlet carries a far different burden of ethics than an entertainment outlet. No one is running to Entertainment Tonight, pretending its news. Everyone knows the Onion is satire because it's up front about it. Is anyone really turning to the Tonight Show to find out what happened during the day?

The Daily Show is on *Comedy Central*- they don't pretend to be the news, they have run commercials where Jon Stewart is on there saying something about how surveys have shown X% of people get their news from the Daily Show and the like followed by him yelling "DON'T DO THAT!".

The danger is what we've seen- people in the news, as opposed to entertainment, universe will speak with all the authority of news until they are called on it and only then will they invoke the defense of "we're just entertainment". That is irreprehensible and dangerous. You should not be able to flip that switch and use that easy defense- if you want to pretend to be news, you have to be willing to stand behind it, not hide behind a flimsy defense.

Only below these levels do we finally reach the Daily Show, Colbert, SNL, Tonight Show, Letterman, hell- Robot Chicken, South Park, etc in terms of level of ethical responsibility, in my mind. They don't pretend to be news. They crack jokes at the news's expense or make biting satire. There is no doubt that they are entertainment first. They do not speak with any authority of news and if you are looking for a source, any of the above levels *should* be counted on for more accurate and factual news than these.

There is stratification within all levels and this is no different. You can have a show like The Daily Show present "news". But in a vacuum, this gets no play- the only reason the majority of people are talking about it today is because it was picked up by another news outlet. It's not as if most of the people here normally watch The Daily Show.

And, if you want a real litmus test, as pointed out earlier by myself and others- the average news outlet is missing the whole point that Jon Stewart was trying to get across so clearly he isn't even being taken as news. How can we mistake what he is doing for news when the news misses the actual "news"?Again, that's more damning on the rest of the news media than anything else when a commedian is asking the "tough" questions and news outlets still aren't picking up on it at all.


And I know, now we've reached the point where the likelihood of all of this is flying pegasus unicorns running on rainbows with a pot of gold at the end of each... but at least I can hope for it.

SI

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you don't think they are both satires then Cho has warped your mind. ;)

You do know the guy who created the format of the Daily Show was the former editor of The Onion? The Executive Producer is a former Onion staffer? It's a lot closer than you think.

I don't get why people can't the inconsistencies in this very thread/

People are admonishing me, telling me "It's just a COMEDY show!"...The same people are telling me how Stewart has stepped up where all other journalists have failed.

Wow- that screed of mine started back when this was at 153 and now a lot of what I wrote was already said since we're down to like 175 now... :p

SI

That is why it's news. Because a fucking comedy show has more journalistic chops than most major news agencies. It's not about The Daily Show being a "news show", it's about how pathetic our current news outlets are.

It's kind of like the guy who knows nothing about sports winning your fantasy football league. It's not that he's suddenly a football guru, it's the rest of the people in the league are pathetic.

And that's where I actually have a higher opinion of Stewart than you guys. He knows what he's doing. He's figured out how to be revered as both a journalist/commentator and an entertainer. I don't think America's ever seen anything like him.

He didn't accidently stumble into political/news relevance.

Mark Twain, Will Rogers. Was Mencken American?

EDIT: Way hyperbolic. Stewart does have writers for some portion of his stuff.

Yes, Mencken was American.

George Carlin, Bill Maher, Dennis Miller.

Carson... Letterman...

I like Stewart as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend he's created some sort of brand new form of comedy here. Telling jokes about the news and then interviewing somebody isn't exactly groundbreaking.

But he is the first to do it after a puppet show!

Yeah I think he's most closely taken after Letterman, who he's openly spoken about as an idol. Letterman is a guy that could shift from comedy to serious as well.

None of those have won awards for election coverage, that I'm aware of.

Not that winning an award is Stewart's "fault" - but he's more "news" than any of those examples.

Has Weekend Update ever won a Peabody? Stuart is more than just commenting on the news.

Not sure if they have, but Mad Men, Project Runway and 30 Rock have won Peabodys. So has the Office, Friday Night Lights, and Ugly Betty.

Do you even know what the Peabody Awards are?

And Satuday Night Live has won a Peabody. Just looked it up.

Heidi Klum could infotain me any day of the week.

I may be misunderstanding his particular Peabody Awards - which I read as for his "election coverage", though looking again, they could have meant that in an entertainment sense.

I don't know if you saw their election coverage, but it wasn't very serious. They sent Colbert into the Republican National Convention telling people he was with NAMBLA. If that won for news coverage and not entertainment, the Peabodys should be disbanded.

Peabodys aren't given out in different categories. A Peabody is just a Peabody. They give them to people/programs for doing whatever it is they do.

The Peabody Awards | An International Competition for Electronic Media, honoring achievement in Television, Radio, Cable and the Web | Administered by University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication

Jon Stewart is very conflicted. He wants to be serious at times (like in this interview) but he needs to realize that he makes money being a comedian. If he wants to be serious, he shouldn't be on 'Comedy Central'.

Actually, I would not be surprised if he ends up on ABC, CBS, or NBC before too long as an serious "analyst/GOP skeptic" of some sort in the next few years.

Maybe he could even have his own late night talk show on Fox.

Edit: Doh, it was MTV. That's not as funny.

Yeah, with his career on life support he needs all the fake advice he can get.

I grew up around poor people, and was poor myself. Hell, I'm still poor. I was also raised by a not well-to-do parent. People that don't have money, and have never had money don't always know how to manage finances. I'm only now, at 25 years old, learning how mis-management of credit and money can affect you in the future. It's not that I'm a stupid person, it's just that nobody ever told me how to do it, because they didn't know how to do it themselves.

Now, you add in a lot of people who didn't have the wherewithall to achieve the capitalist American dream of a family and a house in the suburbs suddenly having someone say "Here, you can have this, and this is how it can work for you." There are a lot of people that had the same dreams that many of Americans have, but didn't have the education, knowledge, connected friends, or rich family members to know that in the long run, they were getting in over their heads.

So, if you are calling people who had trouble with their mortgages "losers", and even applauding the jackass on TV that said it, then you can....suck my dick?

well said Karl

I definitely think finance should be taught in every high school (but then, is it just someone else's fault if someone doesn't pay attention in school)?

At some level, personal responsibility has to enter the equation, even if someone has a valid excuse for not understanding money.

People living beyond their means and crashing and burning impacts us all. Greed is greed. Greed isn't solely a problem for the rich.

Losing control because one "doesn't know any better" is understandable, it doesn't make someone a bad person, but I don't think they should maintain a better lifestyle than I have. They SHOULD lose their house, and be pushed back into their means. And there is a financial "penalty" for that. That's not unfair.

One good thing about recessions are how they make us all more knowledge about finance. Our grandparents didn't take out car loans, or buy houses five times higher than their annual salaries with no money down. Our parents were dumber. We have a chance to be more like our grandparents.

Any one who doesn't think ALL news reporting is biased is a bona-fide Koolaide drinker...I don't care what side of the aisle you sit on. Fox News just chose to cater to a bias that most other media sources consider politically incorrect.

Fair enough - I withdraw the Peabody angle of my strangely bitter anti-John Stuart rant/argument. (Yes after being out of the discussion for even an hour or two, and after a nap, I can recognize my rant as strangely bitter.....Though I still think I'm onto something, I'm just not smart enough to properly spell it out here).

(you forgot insincere)

:D

SI

I don't think the issue was ever over personal responsibility. The public probably doesn't want their money going toward irresponsible people. They probably also in a way side with Rick Santelli. I know that I agree with what he said.

The issue that I believe Stewart was bringing up was the way it was said and the cherry picking of this bailout. Santelli may have been against other bailouts, but he hardly put up this kind of a protest. While the bailout for homeowners included many who were not taught fiscal responsibility, the bank/mortgage/investment/insurance bailout included financially educated people who acted reckless to a level that is criminal. It seems that if you were going to take a stand over bailouts, it should have probably come toward one of the bigger entities that knew what they were doing instead of some homeowner who's life doesn't revolve around this stuff.

And of course, it's a tad hypocritical to rally against bailouts when your paycheck is paid for with the help of the U.S. taxpayer.

I don't think he's conflicted at all. He knows what his audience wants and plays to them perfectly. When he goes serious and shreds someone, it causes massive media attention for him. This story ran on every news network and throughout the blogosphere. I think the fact he can get serious and debate a major figure is what the attraction is to him.

His current contract ends in 2010 and I wouldn't be surprised to see him go to numerous major networks. He could be a replacement for Letterman at CBS. Take over Nightline on ABC. Or run a show on Fox (which may be his best fit) in his current Daily Show timeslot.