Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Sickening Praise for 'The Daily Show'
As corporate media coverage of the presidential race becomes even more notably stingy with intrepid journalism, the mainstream press enthusiasm for "The Daily Show" seems more cloying than ever.
The pattern is now a routine feature of the media landscape: "The Daily Show" gets laudatory attention from major news organizations, where countless journalists watch like shackled prisoners in awe of Superman.
Look -- up in the media sky -- it's a bird, it's a plane, it's Jon Stewart!
While news accounts note how many viewers hold faux "news anchor" Stewart in higher esteem as a journalist than the "real" ones at the top of the media pack, there's a sheepish quality to much of the coverage about "The Daily Show."
After all, many big-name journalists have earned their keep by describing and analyzing the embroideries of the emperor's new clothes. It blows their conformist minds to see a network program that regularly exposes right-wing rulers without a stitch.
Last month, a Sunday edition of the New York Times devoted more than two full broadsheet pages to "The Daily Show," starting with a color photo of Stewart that filled nearly half the cover page of the newspaper's "Arts & Leisure" section. The program "has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news," eminent Times critic Michiko Kakutani wrote.
Consider the subtexts of this passage in the story: "Mr. Stewart ... and his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day -- 'the stuff we find most interesting,' as he said in an interview at the show's Midtown Manhattan offices, the stuff that gives them the most 'agita,' the sometimes somber stories he refers to as his 'morning cup of sadness.' And they've done so in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious."
Well, OK. That says a lot about "The Daily Show." But what does it say about the "real" news media -- and especially about the most important and self-important huge media outlets that dispense news with enormous ripple effects across the media terrain?
If -- as the New York Times soberly reported in the article -- "straight news programs cannot" tackle the "big issues of the day" while "speaking truth to power," we should ask a key question: Why not?
But this is not a question that media outlets like the Times seem interested in pursuing to any depth.
Contrasts with the overwhelming bulk of corporate media are primarily drawn to underscore the uniqueness and extraordinary qualities of "The Daily Show." It's exceptional as an exception. Comedy Central's most famous program is in the spotlight, and the vast expanses of the corporate media are the arrays of darkness that make it so conspicuous. What sheds light is punched up by what blocks it.
Absent from the fawning media coverage of "The Daily Show" is evident self-awareness that the elaborate praise is a tacit form of convoluted self-loathing -- in professional terms anyway -- among the likes of, say, Times journalists. Their own media institution is so circumscribed and so lumbering in its daily incarnation that they're apt to be amazed and envious at the incisively documented presentations on "The Daily Show."
That's the way it goes in medialand. What isn't conspicuous is apt to be insidious. The tick-tock of U.S. media hypnosis may be passably good at looking back -- reexamining some aspects of propaganda for the Iraq invasion, for instance, years after it occurs -- while now helping to mesmerize the country into escalation of the war in Afghanistan. But let's not quibble. Everybody has a job to do.
84 Comments so far
Show All"JOURNALISTIC ETHICS 101" Or, If God had sent Commandments to Journalists instead of Moses
An intelligent, energetic, relentless, ethical, and suspicious press is important, probably critical, to a democracy. To see losses in their numbers does not bode well.
On the other hand, if they want their readership to rise up in their support, journalists need to realize that, as a group, they have "earned" over the past couple of decades a growing reputation for laziness and ethical lapses or appearance thereof due to their frequent coziness with the subjects of their investigations, their unwillingness to admit mistakes and their fear of embarrassment or loss of access or privileges. Such antics tends to make the general public as cynical about what journalists are writing as what the politicians, PR flacks and investigatees happen to be spouting.
To regain support by the public, journalists must first regain trust. Here are a few suggestions. They’re what the reporters must’ve been sleeping through in journalism school.
1.THOU SHALT UNDERSTAND THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED TWO POINTS OF VIEW. If someone declares the sun will rise in the west, it is not sufficient to simply quote someone else who dutifully says it’ll rise in the east. That doesn’t make the resulting report "fair and balanced." A true journalist has an affirmative duty to either point out the obvious that there is not the slightest history of that ever happening or, better yet, do some investigative reporting quoting from astronomy textbooks to point out that the sun does not "rise" at all. It merely appears to do so because of a spinning earth. Either way, the reporter ought to exercise common sense by mentioning it is patently impossible to for it to even appear to rise anywhere except by looking due east. In court, this is called taking "judicial notice."
2.THOU SHALT PRINT FIRST THE QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED. When politicians and PR flacks answer questions that were never asked or don't answer at all, either keep asking the original questions until answered. Or, better yet, print as part of the story the questions that were not answered.
3.THOU SHALT NOT JUST PRINT PRESS RELEASES. All statements of politicians, self proclaimed authorities, self anointed messiahs, CEOs and PR flacks of any sort should be assumed to be either deliberately false or at least ignorantly wrong until proven to be true by verifiable evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt through outside reliable sources.
4.THOU SHALT HONOR REQUESTS FOR PRIVATE CONFIDENCES EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES FROM A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. The only statements made by insiders that should be protected by reporter privilege should be those made about the organization itself, not about outsiders who happen to be criticizing the organization. In other words, sources should be free to label themselves, but never others. Otherwise, it fails the "sniff test."
5.THY NEWS DEPARTMENT SHALT TELL THY MARKETING DEPARTMENT TO STUFF IT. Ownership including major stockholders of media entities as well as all major campaign contributions made by paper owners and their reporters ought to be regularly revealed at the start of each article or news broadcast. It's called disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Beside, if reporters can't find crimes committed by their own bosses, then they aren't doing their job.
6.THOU SHALT NOT SEND THE ENTIRE WORLD'S PRESS CORPS TO COVER ONE SEX TRIAL. Like education, often the public needs to hear news not involving bleeding, bedrooms or loud booms, whether they want to hear it or not. Either that or at least confine such B,B&B "news" to the entertainment pages.
7.THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY COMPETITORS' ACCESS TO POWER. All perks of any sort given to reporters should be considered automatic conflicts of interest and reported in any story by the recipient reporter. Pundit columns should always be clearly marked as solely the opinion of the pundit. Perhaps their expertise, if any, or lack of it on a subject should also be disclosed. In fact, the total number of reporters and staff working on the particular story should be reported at the bottom so that the public can decide how well a subject is covered. Better yet, the amount of time spent on a particular story should be reported.
8.THOU SHALT ALWAYS REVEAL WHEN THE OFFICIALS ARE ANGRY OR ARROGANT. It should be reported as news who is excluded from access to politicians and news sources. Who interviewees refuse to talk to speaks volumes all by itself, not to mention revealing the ethics and moral courage (or lack thereof) of the interviewees who duck reporters. As a group, all reporters should refuse to interview anyone who attempts to pick and chose who will be doing the interviews.
9.THOU SHALT NOT DECEIVE THE PUBLIC. Being first with a report is never as good as being right about the report. And, being right is never as good as being complete. Moreover, Journalism will never be a genuine "Profession" unless reporters are both licensed to practice like doctors/lawyers/accounts and risk losing the license when they disobey journalism ethics. Reporters convicted or fired can be free to write of course. It just should not be with the title of "Reporter" anymore.
10.THOU SHALT CONFINE EDITORIAL OPINIONS TO THE EDITORIAL PAGES WHERE THEY ARE DISCLOSED AS SUCH. Nuf said.
We could go on to discuss the lack of context, lack of followup to find out what happened later on a story, lack of "track record" disclosure as to how many things the reporter or pundit has stated in the past that proved to be completely wrong, lack of information on what has been deliberately edited out of the story, lack of disclosure of how much time was spent on the particular story counting research, lack of respect for the reader's intelligence and usually lack of any revelation of at least the admitted bias the reporter/pundit might have. However, Moses was content to settle on ten. Either that or he got tired of carrying or lost the rest. Maybe someone should investigate.
I watch and like Jon Stewart Show. The MSM is very right wing most of the time.
Watching Stewart, at least you can see how they (MSM) make asses of themselves. It's very good for a laugh.
As a retired TV news anchor, I am delighted by The Daily Show... they are an equal opportunity offender in the sense that they will lampoon either side of the fence when it is being absurd.
One of the most interesting things to come to light in the surveys over the past several years was the FACT that The Daily Show viewers were found to be far more accurate than the cable news viewers when questioned about national and international stories.
For example when regular viewers of Fox News were asked "Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?" over 60% of them got the answer WRONG... where over 78% of regular viewers of The Daily Show viewers got it right!
That could speak volumes about the comparative intelligence of the two groups, or it could be that The Daily Show is just more accurate.
Either way, I trust The Daily Show to get it right far more than I would trust Fox!
NATE W: Right on observation/critique.
snydly
45 years ago my ole pappy gave me a good description of the news. I was studying civics and asked what was the difference between a totalitarian country and a free country. He said that in each country they each had three news channels, but that in a totalitarian country the news was the same on all three channels.
True story.
Go Jon and Steven!!
"While news accounts note how many viewers hold faux "news anchor" Stewart in higher esteem as a journalist than the "real" ones at the top of the media pack, there's a sheepish quality to much of the coverage about "The Daily Show."
After all, many big-name journalists have earned their keep by describing and analyzing the embroideries of the emperor's new clothes. It blows their conformist minds to see a network program that regularly exposes right-wing rulers without a stitch."
Stewart, Schmewart, what's quoted above is the crux of what's gone wrong. The "real" journalists have been masturbating in the shadows while jesters like Jon Stewart have been doing the heavy lifting. And, the people and the nation have suffered for it.
In my mind, bad news reporting is worse than no reporting at all. What we have now is very bad news reporting, from top to bottom.
With regard to "He (Jon Stewart) is the most serious voice on television news (unless you count PBS)", I feel very strongly that Democracy Now with Amy Goodman wins hands down the contest for most serious voice and TV and radio. She presents insights we need to hear but hear no where else.
Check out her schedule at democracynow.org.
Agreed.
In many totalitarian police-states in history, the only way to express effective dissent was to do it covertly through song, poetry or theater.
Both Jon Stewart and his apprentice Colbert are brilliant, brave, great Americans. They are both saying: Look, the King is a fool; and he's staffed every open position in the government with fools.
If anyone else said that on a serious video-stage, the blackwater goons would be all over them. (Luckily, the Blackwater goons and the riot police aren't real smart; just extremely sadistic, but completely unable to fathom intricate political humor.) Like most neoCons who voted for the head chimp-in-charge: their limited ability to decipher a media lampoon comes from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Separately, I like Lewis Beyman's previous post.
NATIONAL BOYCOTT
NATIONAL STRIKE
Jon Stewart is one of the most important media and cultural critics of our time. Seriously. He puts it all together in a package that is humorous and enjoyable to watch, but what he does is actually very serious. He is the most serious voice on television news (unless you count PBS).
"Little Brother": [Once upon a time, "serious" news reporting was the means of raising public consciousness of political and social issues. Now the corporate media is more about UNCONSCIOUSNESS raising, or consciousness-lowering, if you prefer.]
This was before the conservatives rallied their masses to attack any kind of consciousness-raising as LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. That combined with the rise of corporate profits and ratings overtaking the public role of fourth estate being to question those in power.
As a result, we now have a media that is nothing better than any grocery-store stand tabloid.
Some friends of mine recently attended a talk not too long ago by a former KGB agent who now lives in this country. As a side comment, he dedicated a few sentences to basically saying US news networks were filled with nothing but crap and misinformation, particularly with regard to things happening outside the US if they even bothered to mention stuff like that at all.
Powerful words coming from a man whose former country had Communist Party-controlled media.
The Daily Show
Another way for Americans to stick their head in the sand and then pat themselves on the back for it.
I look forward to the Daily Show and Colbert. Laughing is important to me.
I don't know for sure, but I bet that people who watch these shows are more likely to participate in civic life.
Joe
Watching politics is too often a downer. Jon and Stephen make it fun.
I think he is hilarious and unbias. Him and Colbert are awesome. Mainstream media is horrible and only take one side. Keep it up Johnny.
A sure sign that the country you live in sliding towards fascism is when comedy / satire entertainers are the best source of news.
"Difficile est saturam non scribere" Juvenal
I can't agree with this article's premise. The Daily Show mocks the "news," but in an intelligent, sarcastic, OK really gross at times, way. But the regular media deserves to be mocked. The Daily Show goes after the stupidity with a cleaver. Since the regular news gives the Republicans a pass on whatever lies they tell, it's up to Jon Stewart to let people see the crap through the lens of comedy; otherwise, we'd have to slit our throats.
.
Interesting piece on intrepid journalism from the intrepid journalist. How else can you describe an Obama supporter? Carry on with the status quo tripe.
I watched The Daily Show last night, firts time in over 2 months,( dont get it where I am working overseas) and Jon was attacking OBAMA....
WTF?!?!?
I guess that puts the GOP lie under the spotlight....Stewart attackes all of them
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Ummm, I think that is called being unbiased. I know its a difficult concept after watching MSM. Some people just label anyone wh questions ANYTHING about Obama as "the enemy". That might be why he isnt doing better in the pols.
We all know that norm is a slippery one; you have to put this one in context of the rabidly pro-Obama propaganda war he has been waging lately. You have to consult the form-letter template that Norm consistently uses to debase progressives, dissent, and 3rd party politics:
Norm’s Outline
So, what is the ultimate democratic party commissar really trying to say with this seemingly out of place piece? As with any good propaganda, it is never about what he is explicitly saying; it's about a repeated, consistent, implied, and latent message of oppression: you must vote for Obama despite the fact he is not progressive, and he is enslaved to democratic party neoliberalism - to do otherwise is deviance.
The last couple paragraphs of Norm's propaganda pieces usually summarize his infantilizing and demeaning instructions for progressives. Specifically, this piece is about diverting attention from the fact that Obama/Biden campaign is beating the drums for larger wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This piece is Norm trying to “exorcise the demons” of his cognitive dissonance between peace and his support of pro-war Obama/Biden. Norm finds a mental comfort zone by hiding behind the usual suspect: the reified "media". Forget the Orwellian distractions: it is Obama/Biden who are the trying to “mesmerize” us and the "media" to facilitate further war in Afghanistan/Pakistan: the primary outcome of this escalation will be more dead civilians and more budding-jihadist. If Norm had any self respect, he would stand-up to the real INDIVIDUALS behind the "media" that are calling for more killing: Obama/Biden!
This piece is also a sad and pathetic attempt by Norm at self-inoculation. He knows Obama is extremely pro-war and pro-military. Norm still wants him elected, so he has to make it appear that he has always vehemently decried Obama’s war stance; this provides Norm political cover when Obama takes pro-war action in office. It reality, this attempt at immunization completely debases Norm as a progressive, and utterly undermines his support for Obama. You have to keep in mind that Norm is really just a McCain fear monger who needs a democrat in office in order to gain access to power. Is it not hypocritical of Norm to lambast the “media” for ignoring or cheerleading self-destructive wars, while at the same time devoting himself to whitewashing the conservative, corporatist, and empirical foundations of the Obama campaign?
Norm is smart, and he always takes time to debase progressives with a fictitious argument; Norm does this to soften up progressives for his pro-Obama diversions. He knows that many undecided progressive voters watch the Daily Show, and he wants them to know they are lazy, adolescent, and they use the show to further their own denial, alienation, and lack of critical engagement. Norm believes a debased progressive is a malleable progressive.
In the blandest sense, this article is what it is, and what it doesn’t say is more important that what it does. The Obama/Biden campaign is in a hideous, self-inflicted, downward spiral of political spectacle. Norm is flogging the typical “media” whipping boy because he has nothing else positive to say: he has no progressive platform or issues to champion on the behalf of Obama. He had to take a break from fear mongering and scaring progressives regarding McCain and the republicans. It is a sad statement that he can’t make a cogent and substantiated argument to vote for Obama/Biden based on progressive principles. People want a reason TO VOTE FOR Obama that is more than empty rhetoric of “hope” and “change” the belie his actions; all they get from Norm is the culture of fear and reasons NOT TO VOTE FOR McCain.
Some further analysis of Norm’s attacks on dissent and democratic choice:
Norm’s Attacks on Dissent
Stop the Culture of Fear; Stop Norm!
A Vote against McCain is not a Vote for the Progressive Movement!
Thank you. I can agree with your assessment. Soloman has been co-opted and he knows it.
It's time for progressives to understand the value in adhering to their own beliefs. We need to understand the tactics employed by "The Party" and show some resistance to being willingly sucked back into the vortex of the politics that has produced the core problems we now all face.
Soloman is afraid... and well he should be. He is now part of the problem.
Disable the system that disenfranchizes you. Do not vote for The Party.
adamsja4...
You used a lot of space to express the utterly absurd... you must be one of those Fox viewers that I referred to in my post.
I realize that it was a LONG TIME ago, but you may recall that we originally invaded Afghanistan because THEY were the ones harboring al Qaeda and permitting training camps for terrorists... NOT Saddam Hussein.
At that time, few people were up in arms against Bush and Company because we all agreed that it was a worthwhile war... unlike the war in Iraq that we were dragged into under-manned and under-equipped with false intelligence by Bush's backers from PNAC.
Bad intelligence or not, had Bush listened to the REAL experts, he would have sent enough troops to Iraq to do the job properly and we would have been out of there years ago.
Unfortunately, Bush and Company never completed the job in Afghanistan before they went off on their crusade to place a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq.
At this point, the Iraqis want us to leave their country... but the job still needs to be finished in Afghanistan... and Pakistan if necessary.
Thanks for the laugh - it is always funny when a war monger accuses me of being a Fox News adherent. I guess my post wasn't long enough, because you missed the blatant antiwar message.
The point is that Norm decries unnecessary and illegal wars. I protested against our misguided, immoral, and criminal invasion of Afghanistan before a bomb ever dropped; I'm sure Norm did as well. That's the point of Norm's hypocrisy: You can't decry war and then vote for rabid war mongers because of some bullshit argument that they might kill a few less civilians than the other war monger candidates.
You might want to check some of your own Fox Facts: The Taliban has a distinct and separate lineage than al Qaida. Most of the 911 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia and none were Taliban. Afghan civilians are not responsible for the their government's abetting of criminals. Punishing the Afghan civilian population with an aerial bombardment was not justified or appropriate.
Bombs are essentially a tool of state terrorism and provide safe harbor for cowards. We have conducted all of these invasions with incompetence and indifference to civilian life. You know who agrees with me: Rand Corp. - not exactly a liberal beacon. They suggest a better approach to bringing al Qaida to justice:
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/
> A Vote against McCain is not a Vote for the Progressive Movement!
Yes it is.
Think about political strategy and not ideology;
Voting per se in a capitalist system doesn't matter. What matters is to set the stage, the zeitgeist, for revolutionary times.
Workers of the world unite.
You have nothing to lose but your chains.
Voting does matter: It's your right. It's your voice. It's our collective voice. Let's get something straight: A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, not for "the progressive movement."
And thank you very much but I will stick to my "ideology."
The duopoly is an expert mass movement manipulator. The Obama ticket is the perfect example. The Dems have already proven that they are perfectly in sync with the neo-con agenda. Just look at Obama's votes for the war on Iraqis, FISA, etc. And he moves to the right as time goes on, not towards progressivism but away from it. Once they have you in their pocket, it's free sailing. Can't you tell? Always has been, always will be.
Nader 08!
Drift wrote,
"I don't buy your analysis. I think if you asked Solomon himself, or any other progressive backing his candidacy, they'd tell you that AFTER he's elected (which at this point, is not a foregone conclusion), THEN it will be imperative for progressives to REALLY put on the full court press to push the incoming Administration in our direction."
Well, this is a joke worthy of the Daily show. If you can't pressure a candidate before the election (when they need your vote), how will you pressure them after the election, when they won't need anything from you for four years? "Sir, you had best withdraw from Iraq this instant, or I will be forced to write more letters and plan a parade".
About Rob Riggle, he's a major in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, public affairs division, and he served in Afghanistan and Kosovo. What a welcome addition to the Daily Show! Their very own ""message force multiplier".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20358198/
Uhh... as a delegate to the convention and a member of the PDA, the progressive caucus, Solomon WAS putting pressure on Obama before the election.
Look, I'm not a Dem Party apologist. They haven't won my vote yet. If they do, it'll probably be because I live in the swing state of NH, where McCain rose from the dead during the primaries, and where polls between he and Obama are a dead heat. In 2000, I lived in AZ which was solidly Repug, so voting for Nader took nothing away from Gore, due to the electoral college winner-take-all system we have.
My post was to try to bridge the gap we on the Left have amongst ourselves. We're so busy attacking each other we're helpless when it comes to defeating the Right, who've benefitted from our cannibalism lo these 30 or so years. We need to build coalition with one another, and allow for different approaches. Some will work from the "inside," like Solomon at the DNC. Some will work from the "outside" by working on the Nader campaign. Let's realize we're mostly on the same side in this struggle.
Agreed, drift. I've argued this point here on Common Dreams, somewhat to no avail.
I think the Right just salivates when they see the Left attacking each other and cannibalizing any chance we have of moving our agenda forward. We've done it so many times it's as if we don't know how to do anything other than that. Of course, it doesn't help that our efforts are thwarted by infiltrators and shills...even here in River City!
The smart thing to do, in my view, is to vote strategically and keep the pressure on the Democrats all the time. I still maintain that a concerted effort to remove Pelosi and Reid while voting in Obama would send an unequivocal message to the DNC/DLC cabal without imposing 4 more years of neocon crime syndication.
"... vote strategically and keep the pressure on the Democrats all the time."
Not just some of the time! Good point Ted. Does that mean NOW?
If pressure only starts AFTER Obama is elected, what "pressure" does the Obama supporters intend to use? Will you get down on your knees? Will you cry? Stamp your feet? Solomon is very weak on this point.
Putting pressure on Obama before he's elected? It seems weird not to do that. What's going on? Why did Solomon jump into Obama's pocket so early on?
Of course it means NOW! Even Obama has challenged voters to keep his and his party's feet to the fire, starting now.
I'm of the mind (and I think Solomon is as well) that there is a difference between holding his feet to the fire and cutting off our noses to spite our faces. As imperfect as Obama is, it is just irresponsible to allow McCain/Palin to get into office. So, the thing to do is call Obama and the Dems on everything and vote strategically. Let them know who we're voting for and why. While we're at it, let's dump Pelosi and Reid and let the Dems know exactly what and why we're doing it. After the DNC shits its pants, we'll have some clout and I'll bet my bottom dollar we'll see changes within the DNC. First thing I'd suggest to them is to kill the DLC. Kill it dead!
Strategic voting - Good for you.
Sorry, duplicate post...
If the MSM would play the clips of every politician repeating talking points and point out the lies and contradictions like Stewart and Colbert they would have to actually work to find things to be funny about.
And the media might be respected just a little. The vast majority can't even say these words, "President Bush lied." , even when everybody knows this is a frequent occurrence.
McCain and Palin have been consistently lying even after corrected in recent days. Try this teaser for the msm news, "Palin repeats lies again, video after these messages."
Drift wrote,
"I don't buy your analysis. I think if you asked Solomon himself, or any other progressive backing his candidacy, they'd tell you that AFTER he's elected (which at this point, is not a foregone conclusion), THEN it will be imperative for progressives to REALLY put on the full court press to push the incoming Administration in our direction."
Well, this is a joke worthy of the Daily show. If you can't pressure a candidate before the election (when they need your vote), how will you pressure them after the election, when they won't need anything from you for four years? "Sir, you had best withdraw from Iraq this instant, or I will be forced to write more letters and plan a parade".
About Rob Riggle, he's a major in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, public affairs division, and he served in Afghanistan and Kosovo. What a welcome addition to the Daily Show! Their very own ""message force multiplier".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20358198/
Last week The Daily Show's fictitious Alaska correspondent, Rob Riggle said, "I want a leader I can relate to, who's like me, or worse."
The reason a line like that resonates and is funny, is because it's true.
I think many among us want to be catered to.
We channel surf past examination of important issues, but our attention is peaked when the media delivers a candidate who doesn't seem glaringly more intelligent than us, whom we think we'd like to have a beer with, or who has hobbies we like to imagine ourselves engaging in, even if we'd never actually get up off the couch to go shoot a moose.
Stewart and Colbert lampoon this aspect of America.
The MSM caters to it.
I can't see why we criticise the MSM.
"Navy Seals ROCK!" - CBS Evening News Anchor Katherine A. Couric
samson -- "Gee, is Mr. Solomon jealous."
Do you have reading comprehension issues or is it me ? What in the above article makes you think Solomon is criticizing The Daily Show ? Ah well ... its CD ... people take a look at the headline and proceed to vomit on the board without reading the article.
Stewart, Colbert and the crew deserve kudos for exposing the superficiality of our so called news coverage at the very least. Simply the fact that a fake news comedy show gets it right more often than the MSM 'hardballers' should give us all pause. The fact that Mr Solomon's own NY Times failed miserably at it's responsibility to act as the fourth estate and instead acted as a cheerleader for the Bush administration in it's build up for the invasion and occupation of Iraq hardly puts him in a blameless judicial seat to criticize the institution to which he belongs. I do however, applaud any efforts for the journalistic community to begin to police itself and start giving us substance instead of corral carpet. But what's the major subject of all the talking heads this morning?McCain made a big deal out of Obama's use of the phrase 'lipstick on a pig' and his retort.Now is this really an issue in a country with GIs deployed under fire in two countries and an economy in shambles? All I ask from the news media is real and responsible journalism. Isn't that your job?
Support your local organic family farmers
Ditto.
Remember when Rick Mercer was still on 22 Minutes and how he used to introduce it as the best watched News show in Canada.
Daily sorry had to stop watching him he is CNN with a laugh track as someone else said the last time CD did a story about Daily.
Want to have real fun go to the CBC postings They get sometimes over 1700 postings on a story not 50 or so that looks like the average on CD. That is the same postings by the same people over and over.
www.CBC.ca/news. Real easy to sign up
I don't have cable TV, so I've only seen Stewart and TDS in bits and pieces.
Solomon's loathing and exasperation towards the corporate media arises from their collectively "loving" TDS and thereby implicitly deflecting, denying, and trivializing the scandalous and heinous media irresponsibility that TDS lampoons; it's laughing AT them, but they're laughing WITH its laughing at them. I can see why Solomon is irked.
But something else occurs to me after skimming the comments: the Sixties phrase "raising consciousness" comes to mind.
Once upon a time, "serious" news reporting was the means of raising public consciousness of political and social issues. Now the corporate media is more about UNCONSCIOUSNESS raising, or consciousness-lowering, if you prefer.
Paradoxically, as one of the commenters above noted, it seems as if TDS and Colbert provide such consciousness-raising as the corporate mass media offers. One might say they've capitalized on a kind of "it's funny because it's true" concept.
And this relates to the ambivalence in Solomon's article and the comments; fans can honestly argue that TDS/Colbert are a "saving grace"; critics can argue with equal validity that the very success of these shows in the vacuum of straightforward (non-satirical) consciousness-raising is a sign of a deep intellectual and cultural malaise.
In any case, Lewis Black gets a big thumbs-up.
Norman Solomon is saying that MSM feels bad about the lousy job they do in reporting the news, and that's why they like John Stewart.
If they feel so bad about the lousy job they do, why were they so pissed at Stephen Colbert's great satire at the National Press Club? The assembled press people were not laughing, although their dates seemed to be.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879
HI,
The MSM is non-existent. We have Fox. That is Fascist propaganda. The NBC (GE) & related cable shows. They support the war machine which now takes 1 trillion a year from the taxpayers and pours it into the war machine. GE gets a big peace of this pie. They fired there leading cable personality in Donahue at the outset of the Iraq invasion because he was the only voice on cable against the war. ABC-Disney which is the voice of the CIA-putting forth the myth that Iraq was behind the Anthrax killings for instance. Disney want a fascist government to insure that the copyright law is extended every 25 years to protect the mouse. The constitution gives the power of copyright to the congress to help individuals not corporations. CBS which used to have news has gone totally entertainment and botched the entire BUSH as deserter story because they did not spend money to research it properly. Time Warner (CNN) has become Fox want to be. And you never find FSTV or LINK on any of their cable outlets. Clear Channel is now owned by Mitt Romney. The Christian station spew venom through out the land on radio and TV. What mainstream media is there? ANd don't forget the New York media (TImes, New Yorker (which led the assault on Obama this summer) etc. They are consistently and radically pro Israel. Their anti-Obama attacks have come from the underground campaign by HRC and McCain to promote Obama as a Muslim. They wanted HRC and are after Obama for beating her. John Stewart exposes the hypocrisy of the media in a way which promotes liberalism. That is why the media will never do what he does and they pretend to admire him.
If you've seen the book "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents AMERICA", you'll know that Stewart himself reserves his most vociferous and caustic condemnation for the Bush failures at the feet of a compliant and lap-dog press. If you recall the celebrated "Crossfire" interview with Stewart, he famously lambasted the press for lying down on the job as our Constitution was crushed under Cheney's jackboot. Solomon follows suit here, though not nearly as angrily.
He's picking on the media in general, not the Daily Show?
Then what exactly sickens him about the praise?
Why not simply be sickened by the media itself?
He's picking on the media in general, not the Daily Show?
Then what exactly sickens him about the praise?
Why not simply be sickened by the media itself?
These are your questions for whom?
This is not a classroom. Your questions do not illuminate.
Why not say what you mean? Solomon's intent is clear. Without childish vitrolic diction, so enamored here, he told you his distaste for MSM.
Who are your questions for? Or are you so certain that yur opinions are valid that yu never question?
Absent from the fawning media coverage of "The Daily Show" is evident self-awareness that the elaborate praise is a tacit form of convoluted self-loathing -- in professional terms anyway -- among the likes of, say, Times journalists.
Most of the voters in this country (both living and dead) who are about to make McCain president don't watch The Daily Show. John Stewart, his writers and those who do watch the program are not going to tip the election in Obama's favor. If The Daily Show had that much political and cultural power it would immediately be taken off the air. Or John Stewart would be run down and killed crossing the street and his writers would mysteriously disappear. No one is going to be allowed to stop the vampires from drinking our blood. So The New York Tombs can pat itself on the back and wink at us all while they call themselves whores and grave robbers. Big deal! Just keep the cash coming in. The cash is ALL that matters. Here's a scene from the movie "Chinatown" in which Jack Nicholson portrays every powerless political progressive in this country and John Huston plays George Wanker Bush and John McCain rolled into one:
NICHOLSON: How much are you worth . . . 10 million?
HUSTON: Oh, my, yes.
NICHOLSON: Then why are you doing this? How much better can you eat? What more can you buy that you can't already afford?
HUSTON: The future, Mr. Gittes . . . the future.
It is certainly not the job of a comedy show (or the msm either) to "get Obama elected". I could see how someone would think so, if they watch MSNBC much. These shows have a "left slant". But, esp. the DS, seems to be an equal opportunity criticizer. The Right just does more funny, stupid stuff. The Dems continue to put on a show of benevolence.
Is Norm confused? Should Norm be complaining about the MSM? The main stream media has failed to expose either candidate for the corporate shills they are.
Since Norm is a supporter (Democratic delegate at the convension) of one of the corporate shills (Mr. Obama), should not Norm be praising the MSM for the "fine job" they are doing reporting the "news?"
His words "...lets not quibble. Everybody has a job to do."
Besides, hasn't Solomon just put a question mark on the validity of your hyperbole?
If it takes the court jester to say the Emperor in Chief wears no clothes then so be it. Normon Solomon is indicting the mainstream media due to the immense popularity of The Daily Show. He rightfully sees no fault with the show but argues that it speaks volumes about the mainstream media's complicity with power. He was ultimately criticizing the news organs that sycophantically are praising The Daily Show for the news that their own media outlets distort, ignore or suppress.
Jon Stewart said it best himself when he was interviewed by Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. He said, "Stop hurting America. You're hurting America with your partisan hackery," or something to that effect.
Very well said.
Lighten up! If anything, we need comedy and satire to lighten our hearts. I don't watch the Daily Show, but I have seen it, and I don't get the sense that Stewart takes himself seriously, any more than Jerry Springer does; it's everybody else that imparts so much significance to his show. Why is that? Maybe because the mainstream "news" is so unsatisfying and irrelevant?
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
The crazier the US government gets, the easier it is for comics such as Stewart. Nevertheless he does an excellent job of it. Of course as crazy as the US government is, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel for honest journalists.
I agree that the title is not “a propos”; Stewart is deserving of praise as an entertainer. Media insiders especially appreciate that “he gets it” he seems to know what is really going on.
However, the people who play reporters on tv, have betrayed their viewers, and that IS sickening. Just because they admire Stewart doesn’t mean they can morally abdicate their responsibilities to their fellow citizens.
It seems so obvious.....that if mainstream journalists were doing their job no one would be heaping praise on a comedian. Since Jon's show is one of the very, very few places on tv where some of our own political sentiments can be heard, then he becomes our news anchor.
Oakknot
AquarianEye, I completely relate to what you say; I try to watch DS as often as I can, if for no other reason than to catch their "headlines". He speaks to us all.
Thanks to everyone for clearing up the mistaken assumption that Solomon was criticizing the Daily Show.
Having said that, I find the whole comparison of DS to traditional Media to be seriously depressing. What Stewart and his team do is poke their fingers in the eye of establishment politicians; this does not substitute for the media's job. The media does news. Satirists do satire, which is illuminating, but not especially informative.
The real disconnect for me is how anyone ... I mean anyone, can mistake satire for political analysis. The Daily Show does not take over the job of the media in so far as the Media’s job is not to make fun of politics and politicians, but to root out the facts and truth in politics. Stewart doesn't do that. Stewart can't.
What I find negative in all this is that if indeed we do have a generation that believes the Daily Show provides them with reliable political analysis, what must politics mean to them? The Daily Show would be a great addition to a vibrant media, but when it's the only credible voice, I fear it will only serve to teach that generation to be cynical.
If there is no analysis, at least rudimentary, there is no satire. Satire is informative, the more subtle it becomes the deeper the analysis. And "rooting out facts and truth in politics." is not the sole responsibility of "journalists." There are writers who are published on a regular basis in hundreds of publications that do 'political analysis," who would laugh or cringe at the suggestion they are "journalists." Gore Vidal comes to mind.
Your final, "...fear...to teach that generation to be cynical." is a summation that is not supported by what you preceded it with. Do you presume that viewers of the 'Daily Show' do not read political analysis, or even that they are not educated enough to do their own? It is a citizen's responsibility to read what is available and be able to separate the 'chafe from the wheat.' That in itself should provide some optimism. For what that is worth. The "Daily Show's" popularity stems from the truth people have determined on their own and can only find a supporting intellect there in that media.
Remember too the role of the court jester.
Analysis is great, and needed, but it is also a matter of interpretation.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Stewart's piece recently that showed right wing blowhards contradicting themselves in their own words was one of the best pieces of investigative JOURNALISM I have seen in a long time. And yes it does rise to the level of journalism when you are using empirical evidence and doing research IMO.. Hint that one piece probably got more people thinking about neo-con hypocrisy than all of CDs essays have done in it's entire existence. Yes he still is corporate and criticizes Chavez too much, OTH I think his show IS informative to millions and might be the only thing to save us from the creationist ignoramus Palin.
He is basically a comedian, and Chavez really does some funny stuff which is easy to lampoon. He points out flaws in left-wing rhetoric and policies as well as right, so he comes across with an air of fairness, although he is clearly not a right-winger. Back in 2000 I first heard about Halliburton from the DS; it was his show which got me more inquisitive about politics and policies. I wouldn't be here without Jon Stewart, so send your complaints to him!
Jon Stewart is not one of us. He is idealogically main stream, ruling class. To have politicians and journalists roasted and rideculed however is refreshing though. My complaint with the show is when they PILE ON individuals that deserve respect. Kucinich and Chavez come to mind. Sometimes funny and sometimes lame. I'll continue to watch it.
NYTimes pontificates that "straight news programs cannot" tackle the "big issues of the day" while "speaking truth to power".
How about simply investigating and reporting the big issues of the day in a timely way instead of burying or blocking out significant facts? Then way after the moment when the information could have made a difference, a self-important but obfuscatory partial report may finally appear.
How about reporting on peace fairs and peace marches in which thousands take time out from their busy days to try and help our country? Instead they are deliberately blocked out, buried in small articles deep in the paper, belittled with snide comments. They will tsk tsk about some problem in New York, but never reveal the contracts and contractors behind the problem.
The situations today are so egregious that simply reporting the facts would be "speaking truth to power" enough.
I cancelled my subscription to the NYT after they reported on the Washington Press Club meeting without mention of the most historic moment, Stephen Colbert's devastating in your face take-down of the press. They replied to my complaint (and evidently many others) saying that there was no room in the paper to mention it. They reported the unfunny Bush double and everything else. Many sections, page after page of soft lifestyle chatter and of ads for luxury goods, and no room for the Colbert talk. Ridiculous. It was censorship.
Joe
The success of The Daily Show is directly related to the abdication of responsibility and the corporatization and federalization of the "news media." Jon Stewart stepped in and filled the void. If the press were actually doing their job people wouldn't be relying on The Daily Show to be one of the few mainstream media productions that actually calls out the Bushies et al.
Perhaps the attention Jon Stewart is receiving is a way the press can indirectly support Stewart in naming the corruption of the government?
The reason that praise for the DS is sickening has nothing to do with the DS, but everything to do with the contemptable MSM. The article is full of criticism for the rest of the media, but samson sees only a condemnation of the DS; strange.
[If -- as the New York Times soberly reported in the article -- "straight news programs cannot" tackle the "big issues of the day" while "speaking truth to power," we should ask a key question: Why not?
But this is not a question that media outlets like the Times seem interested in pursuing to any depth.]
He doesn't answer why the nyt doesn't pursue this question in depth, but a reasonable person could say that the advertisers who keep the nyt running have vetoed any such story. The people are not to be informed about their naked emperors.
I agree. I would add that The New York Times does not want to disturb the universe of their well-heeled readership whose shopping is essential to the advertising revenue.
Joe
How about an alternate title?
"The sickening lack of any reason to praise the news Media, except for the one show that turns everything into a joke so that it's allowed to be heard".
I admit it's a bit long.
I like that! I think it sums up Solomon's points.
People, we need to read the article before we automatically judge the content.
I like that! I think it sums up Solomon's points.
People, read the article before you automatically judge the content.
Jon Stewart just never makes me laugh. Stephen Colbert does.
I feel just the opposite. To each his own, I guess. Lately on the CR, the laughter seems almost "canned". They laugh at everything he says and does. I like them both/watch them both. They were esp. necessary during the conventions, when they werew about the only thin gthat could help me unwind enough to sleep!
I'm like you, Colbert doesn't do it for me. I don't enjoy watching him bait his interview subjects. Watching people react to his outrageous questions and behavior just isn't funny to me. It's like dumping a bucket of crap on them.
They both make me laugh. Colbert makes me think.
Joe
Guess you missed the prominent mug shot CD had of Solomon on its home page throughout the entire week of the DNC, samson. Nor is it any secret that he was a delegate. And neither did that stop Solomon from pushing a progressive agenda, nor being critical of mainstream, pro-war corpo-Dems.
Clearly you need to read the piece again. He's not critical of the Daily Show at all. He's critical of the timid, fawning MSM that heaps praise on Stewart for doing THEIR job.
Huh? Norman Solomon WAS a respected progressive. Now, by throwing his support to Obama, a mainstream, pro-war (and pro-death penalty, APAC, drug war, telecom spying, etc.) Corpo-Dem, he has himself become a mainstream, pro-war Corpo-Dem. He will push "a progressive agenda" only as far as the voting booth, where he dumps it in the trash. Pox on him. He's a sellout.
I don't buy your analysis. I think if you asked Solomon himself, or any other progressive backing his candidacy, they'd tell you that AFTER he's elected (which at this point, is not a foregone conclusion), THEN it will be imperative for progressives to REALLY put on the full court press to push the incoming Administration in our direction.
So that's the idea anyway. And I'm not personally trying to proselytize here, bidad. It's apparent you'll be voting a 3rd party ticket. More power to ya. I haven't decide yet myself. Could be Obama or Nader. I'll try to vote strategically. Ideally, I'd like to see Obama get in, and see Nader garner the 5% threshold to qualify for federal matching funds in the next election cycle. That scenario would also further put pressure on Obama to move left.
Right ! Solomon is absolutely not criticizing Stewart or his show.
I like this statement: "It blows their conformist minds to see a network program that regularly exposes right-wing rulers without a stitch."
I also like that Solomon likens the MSM journalists to "shackled prisoners". :-)
Gee, is Mr. Solomon jealous. Maybe its because Jon Stewart is far more entertaining that Mr. Solomon could ever dream of being.
What did the Daily Show do to piss him off? Did they make a joke about his candidate (Obama) that he didn't like. BTW, I notice CD still prints Mr. Solomon's pieces without the acknowledgement that he was an Obama delegate at the convention.
Overall, Jon Stewart has done a wonderful job with comedy of the same sort of stuff that Mr. Solomon has tried to do with boring, ponderous seriousness. A good lesson for all. Too bad Mr. Solomon has his skirts all twisted up in a knot over someone else's success.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Pretty sure you missed the point, Samson. Anyway, it's hypocritical to be picking on Solomon's work in retaliation for your (mistaken) perception that he's picking on Stewart, no?
Agreed.
Sampson, the message in Solomon's post isn't that Stewart doesn't deserve acclaim, just that the acclaim is coming from the wrong sources and for the wrong reasons... and is destructive.
Stewart offers fine comedy, satire, opinion, editorial, insight and rage... but he isn't the "source" of news. He may "rereport" at times, but always with a personal slant. As far as suggesting that his show fulfills the traditional role of real investigative reporting based solely on facts... no.
The NY Times piece that Solomon points to is more of an admission of total failure of corporate MSM, to live up to the standards to which we have held a free press... and its total capitulation of its traditional role as watchdog over greed, corruption, lies and government propaganda.
It's not that Stewart doesn't deserve credit for his "show", it just that it's sad... and very dangerous, that the state of one of our most valued Constitutional protections has fallen and been rendered ineffectual.
That so many now turn to Stewart and his ilk as an alternative to the MSM lies of commission and omission, is a tragedy... and those who are real professionals know it. That they also promote Stewart as a source of news is self-flagellation at best and at worst, an admission of defeat.
The corporate press/broadcast news no longer serves the public's interests. Stewart laughs about it and makes millions... and gets free MSM advertising. Smart guy.
oooops... should have read down... so many others said it better. Sorry for the redundancy.