NYT compares Jon Stewart to Edward R. Murrow

Ought Six · 12-27-2010, 02:27 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/bu...wart.html?_r=3

Kassy · 12-27-2010, 04:10 PM

Well i'm not up to to detail on US bills but each age has it's own heroes and this sounds like more people should have voiced their opinions but much depends on the wording of the law. Sadly the links in the article are mostly to generic desciptions.

Do you think he did a good job here?

Ought Six · 12-27-2010, 04:18 PM

Stewart is a *comedian*. To seriously compare a jokester to Edward R. Murrow is a travesty.

CanadaSue · 12-27-2010, 04:52 PM

He's a comedian. I love his show as well as Colbert's.

I do NOT make the error of mistaking them for journalists.

Sysiphus · 12-27-2010, 04:54 PM

I have no problem with that. The problem with Stewart is that he is beginning to think of himself as more pundit than comedian.

Toner · 12-28-2010, 02:37 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nd-thats-okay/

Ought Six · 12-28-2010, 02:42 PM

S:

Quote:

"The problem with Stewart is that he is beginning to think of himself as more pundit than comedian."

It is career suicide for a comedian to start taking themselves seriously. They cannot mock the pompous when they themselves become pompous. We shall see if Stewart can walk that fine line without tripping on it.

Brihard · 12-29-2010, 10:41 AM

I maintain my opinion that Stewart is much easier to mistake for a real journalist than much of the idiot talking heads that adorn most of the networks.

Stewart is very, very sharp. I think he recognizes exactly where he stands, and is being extremely careful to stay relevant and funny without crossing the line into real real punditry- but for all that he does a more honest job of looking at a lot of issues than most.

My opinion on Stewart was cemented when he ripped apart CNN Crossfire.

You Tube

Ought Six · 12-29-2010, 05:27 PM

Most of the talking heads on TV are *commentators*, not journalists; a distinction that many people, and even many alleged journalists fail to make with distressing regularity.

Stewart's method is to purposely distort the news through selective editing of video clips to create a comedic effect. While he can be very insightful at times, his methods are the opposite of journalism. He is at best a social commentator as well as obviously a comedian. I think the comparison between him and Glenn Beck in the article is apt.

So far as his 'Crossfire' appearance, his main criticism seemed to be that the show did not ask tough enough questions. If that was a big problem for him, then surely Stewart's main target should have been Larry King, no? But during Stewart's 'Larry King Live' appearances he never took King to task for being the King of Softball Interviews. Later, Stewart openly stated his animus for CNN (which I share). This again points to a non-journalistic, totally unobjective approach based mainly on his own personal opinions and prejudices.

Brihard · 12-30-2010, 10:06 AM

"This again points to a non-journalistic, totally unobjective approach based mainly on his own personal opinions and prejudices."

The nice thing about Stewart is that he doesn't pretend otherwise. You get him at face value.

As for Crossfire, his main concern wasn't that they don't ask tough enough questions in general, but that the 'real' news media (and commentary) as a whole doesn't really hold politicians that accountable for giving straight answers to tough questions. He was on Crossfire, but he was speaking about pretty much all of the 'talking head' shows collectively.

As Stewart pointed out, his show follows one of puppets making crank phone calls. His show isn't supposed to or intended to be taken seriously in any way comparable to the 'real' news or talking head shows- which is why when the Crossfire guys tried to turn Stewart's criticisms right back on him, it fell flat on its face.

Ought Six · 12-30-2010, 08:41 PM

I think that Steward says that his show is not intended to be serious, and then with a wink and a nod encourages people to believe that he is engaging in serious news and current events commentary and analysis in a comedy wrapper. And then when challenged on what he says, he then just falls back on 'it's a joke!' Very convenient. That allows you to make any criticism of anyone or anything, no matter how invalid, and get away with doing it with no repercussions. Nobody can call him on anything, though millions accept what he says as 'the truth'. He makes no serious effort to discourage this.

I think that Stewart definitely tries to have it both ways, and lately has been straying further in the direction of political activism and serious commentary while hiding behind his supposed non-pundit status. I find that to be a bit disingenuous and cowardly, though quite clever. YMMV.