Monday
Mar162009
Jon Stewart: Can "Mainstream" Media Put Him Back in His Box?
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 8:38
Related Post: Flashback - Jon Stewart, Politics, and Crossfire in 2004
For a sharp-eyed, detailed examination of the issues of collusion between business and media highlighted by Stewart, see the analysis on Naked Capitalism.
One of the side effects of The Daily Show's takedown of financial pundits, and specifically CNBC and Jim Cramer, has been a sustained attempt by "proper" journalists to put Jon Stewart back into a comedian's chair. Leave aside, for the moment, the noticeable silence of the immediate victim, CNBC, and its partner channels NBC and MSNBC. Consider instead the Twitterings of media monitor Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post:
What Kurtz is spectacularly missing, in the CNBC incident, is that most "journalists" failed to pick up on the seriousness of the economic situation, accentuated by speculation, some very dodgy financial and investment practices, and a lack of regulation.
In a Post article, Kurtz did offer the anodyne statement, "Business journalists generally failed to anticipate the magnitude of the Wall Street collapse," but he was blind to the sharper point of Stewart's critique: in some cases, business journalists walked hand-in-hand with the markets and investors they were supposedly observing. As long as the market rose and the shakiness of the loan structure was not exposed, everyone could be blissfully happy; the only problem was when the economic walls came tumbling down.
That's when Stewart's line, "It's not a f****** game," is not just a shriek of anger (again, as the media is framing it); it is the pertinent point that the "mainstream" media didn't make. Indeed, they dare not make it because the questions raised about the system fuelling the artifice of wealth would have been too daunting.
Stewart did not choose to be the point-man on this journalistic challenge; had Cramer kept his mouth shut at the start of last week, this would have been a (very good) one-off Daily Show shot at financial expertise. But, when Cramer's snide retort at the "variety show" of a "comedian" opened up the issue, Stewart on the challenge.
He did so seriously. Effectively. Critically. And, if the "journalists" fail in the future to do their job, I will be grateful if he does so again.
For a sharp-eyed, detailed examination of the issues of collusion between business and media highlighted by Stewart, see the analysis on Naked Capitalism.One of the side effects of The Daily Show's takedown of financial pundits, and specifically CNBC and Jim Cramer, has been a sustained attempt by "proper" journalists to put Jon Stewart back into a comedian's chair. Leave aside, for the moment, the noticeable silence of the immediate victim, CNBC, and its partner channels NBC and MSNBC. Consider instead the Twitterings of media monitor Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post:
I depict Stewart as an avenging media critic, saying what others can't or won't, but of course he can fall back on "I'm just on a comic".
Of course Stewart, as a non-journalist, doesn't have to be balanced or give [the] other side.
Artificial "balance" can be silly when facts are on one side. But journalists, unlike comics, have an obligation to include the other side.
What Kurtz is spectacularly missing, in the CNBC incident, is that most "journalists" failed to pick up on the seriousness of the economic situation, accentuated by speculation, some very dodgy financial and investment practices, and a lack of regulation.
In a Post article, Kurtz did offer the anodyne statement, "Business journalists generally failed to anticipate the magnitude of the Wall Street collapse," but he was blind to the sharper point of Stewart's critique: in some cases, business journalists walked hand-in-hand with the markets and investors they were supposedly observing. As long as the market rose and the shakiness of the loan structure was not exposed, everyone could be blissfully happy; the only problem was when the economic walls came tumbling down.
That's when Stewart's line, "It's not a f****** game," is not just a shriek of anger (again, as the media is framing it); it is the pertinent point that the "mainstream" media didn't make. Indeed, they dare not make it because the questions raised about the system fuelling the artifice of wealth would have been too daunting.
Stewart did not choose to be the point-man on this journalistic challenge; had Cramer kept his mouth shut at the start of last week, this would have been a (very good) one-off Daily Show shot at financial expertise. But, when Cramer's snide retort at the "variety show" of a "comedian" opened up the issue, Stewart on the challenge.
He did so seriously. Effectively. Critically. And, if the "journalists" fail in the future to do their job, I will be grateful if he does so again.