This could very well wind up in the Pit, but I thought I’d put it here for now.
Granted, these two have been at each other’s throats for years, but they’ve really dialed it up since the Common faux-outrage last month, and especially since Stewart went on Chris Wallace’s show a couple of weekends ago.
Anyway, last night Stewart had a montage of the pieces Fox News has done on him lately - there were quite a few, among them some clips of talking heads accusing him of racism for making fun of Herman Cain. To which Stewart responded by showing another long montage of him doing funny ethnic voices.
Fox News seems awfully sensitive to criticism from a comedy network. Maybe this is their way of admitting that they too are a comedy channel.
If it leads to the bits Stewart has been doing, which are both funny and spot-on, then let the feud continue. His discussion of how Fox brands Conversative Victimization was great…
Perhaps biased because I am a fan of “The Daily Show” but my initial thought was that Stewart was doing a stereotypical old man of the “you kids get off my lawn” ilk. While it might have been more racial than that, it definitely was not Amos 'n Andy style dialect as Mr. Cain asserted.
I think Stewarts voices are funny because they are so bad and he pretty much acknowledges that.
Both sides are talking past each other. (I saw both the Fox News Sunday interview of 6/19/11, and the Daily Show of 6/28/11.)
Wallace wants Stewart to admit that there is bias in “the main stream news media”, and Stewart does not agree (at least, Stewart seems to believe that there isn’t any more than what amounts to statistical noise since humans are involved), and Stewart wants Wallace to admit that FNC has a deliberate bias (which Wallace doesn’t actually deny, as Wallace says that it is to counter the [perceived] bias in tMSNM).
Both seem more interested in pointing out the other’s bias (and trying to get the “other side” to admit something), and both seem to miss an important point, I think: The individual viewer is going to apply their own bias to both shows. When that show presents topics or arguments that happen to coincide with that viewers bias, that show will seem rational, well thought out, fair. The opposing viewpoint is going to be seen somewhat less favorably, and is going to eventually be considered either deliberately biased & misleading, or just stupid & wrong. In other words, a “lefty” is going to think Stewart (or Maddow, Olbermann, etc) is reasonable or objective, while FNC is seen as biased. Flip that for a “righty” viewer. Both Stewart and Wallace are also evaluating their own network (and the “opposing” network) through that same biased lens.
Both Stewart and Wallace are right (and both wrong) about biases. We can nitpick all day about errors reported and try to determine who is less or more credible as a source of info, but our own biases will even interfere here, as we categorise (“weight”) which errors are too “trivial” to count, and which errors matter.
It’s worth noting that Jon Stewart isn’t the “Mainstream News Media”, he’s a guy on a comedy show that lampoons the media industry. He should, by definition, be a less credible news source than Fox and the fact that Fox would even get into that fight with him (and appear to lose it at times) is comedy in of itself.
Yep, just speaking as a media guy, the important thing to take from this is that a respected newsman, Wallace, has to be defensive enough about his position to attempt a debate with a satirist, which is what Stewart is these days.
It’s one thing if Ted Koppel or Walter Cronkite or something is beating you up for your bias. You should take that seriously. But to take Stewart beating you up for the same is to show a certain guilty conscience.
Wallace did what he could to retract that comment later on, maybe Monday. If you work for Fox News, you’re not supposed to admit they’re tilted toward the conservatives, and it’s Stewart’s harping on that point that precipitated them going after him around the clock like they evidently did.
I think that’s true, but it may miss the broader issue, which is that news sources (print, online, TV) are increasingly telling people whatever they want to hear. Fox News tells an older conservative audience what it wants to hear, MSNBC tells a liberal audience what it wants to hear, nobody listens to whatever CNN is saying, etc.
I think there’s a lot of truth here. It doesn’t fully negate the issue of bias in the presentation of the news, though.
I know. Stewart always mentions that he’s just a comedian. So? How is that different than any other celebrity that wants to go public with viewpoints?
I think they can be just as effective and valid, especially if they are able to explain coherantly how they arrived at their conclusions, which Stewart can do, compared to any well groomed news anchorperson. Comics (especially some standup comedians like George Carlin) can be effective by using irony and humor in communicating their opinions.
Of course, some celebrities are fairly stinky advocates, because it can become clear that they do not offer well thought out arguments. But neither Stewart nor Wallace qualify as stinky, IMO.
If Stewart himself thinks that he shouldn’t matter in the world of public political punditry, he shouldn’t engage in it either on Fox, or on his show. Fox thinks enough of Stewarts skills and popularity to keep inviting him back.
I think his Rally to Restore Sanity shows that he feels he has a worthwhile message and talent for communicating it. He could have just gone to Disneyland that weekend instead.
Heh. I saw that, as shown by Stewart. “Legitimate” news organisations have to deal with issues of “trust” that comics don’t. Fox wants to sell itself as “fair and balanced”, because there is a market made up of folks who think some other networks are too imbalanced.
Also, a soundbite or video clip of Wallance saying “of course we’re biased” is going to be played over and over and over and over by Fox’s competitors untils well after the next election cycle. Why hand your competitors free ammo? Make them work for it.
“Increasingly”? As I get older, wiser, and silverhaired, I am beginning to think truly objective news reporting was a rarity. Remember “yellow journalism”? “Remember the Maine” and the drumbeat to war in the papers?
Journalism reflects society at large, I bet. If the people are polarised, so will the media be.
There is a perception that news was objective during the “Kronkite” era. (50’s and 60’s?) If true, I don’t know how to get back to the “good old days”.
I think it’s a fact that a lot of consumers want to be reassured (“confirmed”) in their beliefs and ideology. They actively seek out echo chambers. This has shaped the 24hour news channels, and I see it shaping the Dope. Natural human social behavior, I guess.
This is good business for both entities. Stewart’s audience loves to feel superior to the fly over country rubes who watch Fox News and Fox News’ audience loves to feel like they are pushing back against the effete snobs who run the liberal media. This feud generates attention while helping both build their brands. If the rest of the media were as smart as these two, the media would not be in such a sad state.
The problem with the “Liberal” media argument is that it basically is without any fact. Just ask Anthony Weiner. Coming up with conservative bias on Fox is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. But to Conservatives, any criticism of conservatives automatically means you have “liberal” bias.
Anyway, I think the guy is basically the O’Reilly of the left - just another blohard with a huge chip on his shoulder and a massive ego, who’s a little too quick to anger for his own good. So, no, I’m not a fan.
It’s also worth noting that Stewart does not, in fact, deny bias in mainstream media news. Stewart has consistently complained of the manifest bias of all major news media towards laziness and sensationalism. That very phenomenon is the basis of most of TDS’ comedy.
Unfortunately, and ironically I suppose, Jon’s concern over the natural consequences of that bias are hardly ever discussed (even in the reporting on last year’s Rally to Restore Sanity). Because the bias requires the media narrative to be “Fox Feuds with Funnyman” rather than “News Media Fail to Inform”.
I disagree with this. I think Fox continues to preach to a faithful choir, but I can’t imagine how playing heckler to a popular comic is a persuasive tactic for anyone but their core viewership. It’s a stupid fight to pick.
We can nitpick all day about errors reported and try to determine who is less or more credible as a source of info, but our own biases will even interfere here, as we categorise (“weight”) which errors are too “trivial” to count, and which errors matter.
