Help Me Articulate Jon Stewart's Critique of The Media

[DrFunkenstein]

After watching last Friday's Crossfire 4x now (thank you, mighty Tivo!), I've become increasingly convinced that this issue may perhaps be the most important of our times, not only for our citizens - who were led by the nose into a tragically unnecessary war - but also for John Kerry's Presidency and for every future campaign, especially at the national level.

Without trying to open old wounds, I would say that this should be particularly close to home for Dean supporters. Dean lost - and I strongly opposed him - not because he was qualified, but because of political theater. Beyond the so-called "scream" and what it tells us about the nature of cable news, I opposed Dean because I didn't think he would fare well under a media uncluttered by journalistic integrity. You may consider me reprehensible for that, but that's at least a big part of the truth for my opposition. Let me make clear, though, that I supported Kerry, not because of his theatrics, but because I believed in the man's (but I did think that he was both saavy and somewhat protected by his war hero status).

That said, let us go to Jon Stewart's critique of the media and what it means for our democracy.

1. There is no liberal or conservative bias - the true bias is towards crap. Which means scandals, gaffes, hair cuts, etc.

2. What viewers "perceive" of an issue is far more reportable than the facts of that issue (bor-ing!).

3. There is no sense of a "filter" between what politicians/campaigns say and the public regarding the validity/truth of their statements.

4. Relatedly, "objectivity" has come to mean giving equal time to the he said/she said between opponents, not an objective striving towards the truth. Which doesn't even count as nuetrality.

5. This new definition of "objectivity" finds its most absurd lengths at its logical conclusion - the television debate show. Rather than two unique perspectives trying to argue the validity of their perspective, issues are reduced ad absurdum into two binaries (liberal/conservative, etc.) that try to win the argument instead.

6. The idea of investigative journalism has become all but moribund, in favor of idle speculation. It should be noted that speculation doesn't even count as reportage, let alone investigation.

7. News programs are "hard" on politicians because they are hungry to "catch" them, but are incredibly "easy" on politicians when it comes to policy choices that directly affect the public.

8. The media has become absurdly narcissistic, preferring to report on campaign process - the "theater" of politics - rather than policy choices, but ultimately prefer reporting on their own reportage and its public reception.

9. The media feel a smug sense of irony in accepting the spin of each campaign, preferring to note the intended message (if noting anything at all) rather than checking the facts. If an internet site does such checking, the media will turn it into a story about "the internet fad."

--------

There is much more to draw out, but I am on my lunch break here. But if you want to ponder the consequences of this phenomenon, consider the coverage of the Mary Cheney "scandal" (sorry for bringing it up!) and how the media was much more concerned with Kerry's gaffe than with say, Republican's bigoted attempt to alter the Constitution to deny equal rights.

Talking about the health of our democracy is considered the stuff of academic pinheads, but a gaffe provides ample reason to endlessly speculate on the open and unquestioned spin of a campaign spokesman.

Conversely, the Bill O'Reilly scandal is considered worthy of discussion, while his repeated abuse of the public trust is a snoozer.

I truly hope people would take the time to add to (or critique!) what I've written, and perhaps we can actually find some sort of breakthrough, perhaps even demand that some media reform be enacted.



Jon Stewart, media whore.

[JUS]

1. I think you got it down pretty well

I've also watched it several times - I think it was an important moment, of sorts.

One thing that I would ad - is that there is no 'winning' the arguments when they have on the 'two sides' to debate...winning the argument is not the goal, nor is it really possible, since the arguments themselves are just the shadows on the walls of Plato's cave.

Also - the cartoonish aspect to it - hence Stewart's bringing up pro-Wrestling as a comparison...

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Actually Winning Would End The Debate

And they don't want it to end.

[JUS]

6. yep

My favorite line was "I'm not going to be your monkey."

[The White Tree]

15. Mine was

I didn't see it but read the transcript:

STEWART (I assume to Tucker Carlson): You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.

I spit tea when I read that.

[ibegurpard]

2. I want to expand on point number one:

that there is no conservative or liberal bias but a bias toward "crap." I don't think that is quite correct. The bias toward "crap" is a deliberate and cynical ploy on the part of media owners (who are most definitely conservative and stand to reap tremendous windfalls from further media regulation relaxations) to put a lid on the important issues. It's a deflection strategy with the underlying intention of keeping people in the dark by keeping them talking about unimportant things

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Media Deregulation Is Not Necessarily Tied To Further Conservatism

Although it usually is. But keep in mind that alot of conservative groups, including the NRA, oppose media consolidation.

[ibegurpard]

5. When I talk about "conservatism"

I'm referring to the bastardization of the concept that applies towards the Republicans right now, not the actual meaning of the word and the true ideals of conservatism.

[July]

7. I would add one thing.

Self-appointed pundits in the media are more interested in becoming "personalities" than journalists, because that's where the money is. It was a telling point in the Jon Stewart appearance on Crossfire when Jon pleaded that they be responsive to the people and Carlson asked how well they pay.

[JUS]

8. "not...not well,

but you can sleep at night."

[timezoned]

9. Bravo

This really needs to be talked about. I've posted elsewhere that there were two problems, the first that all of this sensationalist BS started (McLaughlin) at all, and the second that it was almost entirely wingnuts (McLaughlin) for a long time and/or patsy foils with them. (you remember Patsy, country singer with the aluminum on her head)

These days there are left wing screamers in there too, so this is at least better. But it's not better.

I sometimes fear (ducking as I say this here) that if the we finally learn enough lessons well from the wingnut smear machinites to win - where will we be then exactly?

I'd hate to be a decent politician running against these tactics from either side. When the screaming starts, reason is out the door.

As Groucho put it "...innuendo! That's what I always say - Love flies
out the door when money comes innuendo.". (Monkey Business) (How appropriate.)

[JHB]

18. McLaughlin didn't start it...

...The first was conservative journalist James Kilpatrick, whose stint opposite Shana Alexander on "60 Minutes" was parodied on "Saturday Night Live" with the "Jane, you ignorant slut..." skits (coming full circle, one of the writers for which was Al Franken).

McLaughlin came after the ground had been well-plowed, but he was the first who didn't even bother to try to maintain a pretense of journalistic objectivity.

[timezoned]

19. Oh yeah that was called

Point-Counterpoint, wasn't it? I'm old enough to remember that. McGlaughlin was the first to start the literally shouting across the room though, I don't remember Point/Counterpoint having much of that.

Before that there was Firing Line which despite is absurdly right wing cast could definitely be called real debate. Imagine that one could feel nostalgic for those days, who would have thought?

[Hamlette]

10. Anyplace online I can see Stewart on Crossfire?

I never watch...and was in transit on Friday. I saw a clip on CNN last night (hotel doesn't have MSNBC or Comedy Central...I'm dying here!) and his "I won't be your monkey" response to Tucker should go down as one of the best moments in pundit history.

Would love to see the whole thing. Links?

[rocktivity]

11. Links!

transcript

video links

:headbang:
rocknation

[monchie]

12. Jon did sort of articulate part of point #1

1. There is no liberal or conservative bias - the true bias is towards crap. Which means scandals, gaffes, hair cuts, etc.

I think he did imply the bias was toward crap...but I don't think he implied that there's no liberal or conservative bias.

IMHO, yes, the bias is toward crap...but almost always the crap is designed to hurt Dems and prop up ReTHUGs. For example, where were the media feeding frenzies surrounding Shrub's cocaine use or his blowing off his Air National Guard physical? Instead we had a nearly month-long feeding frenzy that used easily debunkable lies to smear John Kerry's military record. (And on The Daily Show, Rob Corddry did a brilliant bit where he ridiculed the media's "balance" where it gave equal weight to the transparently false Swift Boat accusations and the extensive and long-established documentary records of Kerry's heroism.)

The media have a corporate bias...which corresponds pretty closely, but not exactly, to a right-wing bias. The principal corporate bias is towards making money to enrich the corporation. Crap sells, so there's a bias toward crap. But corporations also view the ReTHUGs as more friendly toward their overall interests, especially if, say, the corporation is not just a media outlet but also a military contractor.

So, the crap bias is part of the overall corporate bias, but it's not the entire story.

[ibegurpard]

13. I agree with you

You articulated the point I was trying to make above much better than I did.

[rocktivity]

14. JON STEWART, AMERICAN HERO!

I read the transcript of the Crossfire show and was genuinely shocked--partly because Jon didn't say anything about his book, but mostly because he wasn't trying to be funny. Thanks to Wonk here at DU, I was also able to actually see what happened--and I feel I've witnessed something that rates with those civil rights marchers heading into that defensive line of police dogs and fire hoses.

He called them partisan hacks! He equated their show with pro wrestling! He forgot to plug his book! HE REFUSED TO BE FUNNY! And for what? So he could accuse them, and the mainstream media in general, of starving America intellectually by passing off the peddling of political agendas as news. Since Jon has earned his living by poking fun at exactly that, the self-sacrifice and moral courage he displayed is astounding. I mean, how patriotic can you get?

:headbang:
rocknation

[The White Tree]

16. And yet by doing that

Based on the way I read the transcipt, he was quite funny nonethless. The greatest satire, which is what makes the Daily Show so great, simply has to alert people to the absurdities that exist. They don't need to embellish.

Case in point - from the transcript:

BEGALA: Don't you have a stake in it that way, as not just a citizen, but as a professional comic?

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Right, which I hold to be much more important than as a citizen.

BEGALA: Well, there you go.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: But who would you provide you better material, do you suppose?

STEWART: I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president?

STEWART: No. Why would it be harder?

CARLSON: Because you support...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder.

But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

STEWART: In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record.

But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: So I don't worry about it in that respect.

[gumby]

17. The 2000 election clearly shows

the corporate bias toward crap that hurts the Dem; Buddhist Temple, Earth Tones, Canoe Trip, Love Story, Love Canal, Alpha Male, to name a few. These stories were all crap, all untrue, all harmful to Gore and all endlessly repeated by the corporate media. The "other side" crap about Bush was almost nonexistent.

The corporate media has taken up and amplified the right's extremely successful ploy to destroy reasonable debate in this country: Other Side. In the Other Side model, the right can declare a completely false premise or an outright lie and demand that it be given equal time and consideration as reality-based arguments. Millions of people think that arguments offered by serial liar Rush Limbaugh actually represent valid debate. Hence, something as universally important as global warming has been reduced to a "side" demeaned as "environmental wacos," and torture is a "fraternity prank." The Swift Boat Liars are a recent example. Equal sides. See?

Jon Stewart is correct, the media is hurting us.