The Impact of Stewart's "Crossfire" Appearance

Earlier I posted a clip of Jon Stewart's appearance on 'Crossfire' where he basically told Begala and Carlson that they were, how can I say this..."partisan hacks." And that their lack of actual, honest, fact-based debate was "hurting America."

The appearance has caused a ruckus with some predictably riled up conservatives, like Douchebag of Liberty Robert Novak.

Meanwhile this clip has traversed the world and been high on every political blogger's list of things to talk about.

Very Important Blogger Dave Weinberger has written his own take on it here, and I have to disagree with one thrust of his post:

"When you come down to it, Jon Stewart's segment on Crossfire was actually sort of lame. He told the hosts that they're playing into the hands of the politicians and corporations, but he didn't tell them how. He called them hacks but didn't explain in what sense. He said they were degrading democracy but not what an alternative might be. When people replay this segment in ten or fifty years, they'll wonder why it mattered."

Find out why I think he's got it all wrong in the extended entry:

First of all, Weinberger seems to be avoiding mentioning the fact that it was tough for Stewart to get a full sentence out once it became clear to hosts Carlson and Begala that he wasn't there to be their funny monkey. They weren't about to give Stewart a soapbox and just let him go.

But even with what Stewart did manage to get out, I disagree that it wasn't perfectly clear what he meant and why it mattered.

He basically accused them of parroting their respective sets of cliche talking points, liberal and conservative alike. That's how they are playing into the hands of politicians. That's why they're hacks. There's not an original thought out there when it comes to many of these pundits. If you've heard your aunt, the Limbaugh listener, spouting the exact same catch phrases as the President or his spokesmen, or Bob Novak or Tucker Carlson...then you know exactly what Stewart is talking about.

And he did not say they were degrading "democracy". He said they were hurting America.

That's quite different I think. The media is hurting America by their unwillingness to do their real job...to be the Fourth Estate, to be our last protection from political corruption and the like. To actually ferret out the truth, not accept like baby birds spoon-fed pablum.

The media has confused presenting both sides without comment as being balanced and objective. Well, when one side is a lie and the other truth, it hurts us all for the media to be loathe to point it out. Just look what happened to the guy who dared to write in a memo that if Bush's lies were total and egregious, and Kerry's mis-statements were minor or a matter of context...then that should be pointed out! Horrors! How unbalanced. How biased!

What BS.

My mom and I are both regularly polled online by Zogby. One of his polls once asked you to name the three groups you felt were responsible, if you had responded that the country was on the wrong track.

Later we were surprised to discover that we had both listed the media among our top three.

The mainstream media has abandoned the public interest, and in so doing, yes, they are hurting America.

Stewart didn't explain what they should be doing. But that's because it all boils down to one simple request:

Turn down the volume, and start telling the truth.

I thought it was crystal clear.

Posted by elisa at October 20, 2004 01:00 PM | The "Liberal" Media