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.
Reader Comments (3)
Though, of course, Stewart equally failed to notice any of this until after it happened.
That's not to say any of this was a surprise; regardless of what politicians have claimed it was actually relatively easy to find criticisms of the deregulation credit culture at the time.
So, there has definitely been a media collusion, but at the same time Stewart has come very late to this and isn't much of a help. Highlighting Cramers asinine crap six months after the event makes one think of horses bolting and doors left ajar.
Jonny,
Of course Stewart is "late" on this in that he is not a specialist journalist on financial matters. His call-out, initially in the humourous take on CNBC and then when it got serious w Cramer, was why those who claim expertise in those matters not only missed the issues and problems but blissfully put on their "bells and lights" presentations even as the problems are mounting.
What astounds me is that, even after Stewart has exposed the failings of the media, those casting supposedly expert eyes over the week's events merely repeat the error --- have a look at Howard Kurtz's attempt to set up a bun-fight (in the name of critique) by bringing in Tucker Carlson to "comment". (Have just asked Kurtz about this but doubt I'll get an answer!)
S.
Oh, yes of course, I mean the problem here is that all this is so deeply intertwined with an accepted logic that to question it is to be unintelligible, or more worrying wrong.
But, to be fair Slate had a good summary which pretty much agreed with Stewart. Slate had articles about probems with CNBC long before Stewart brought up Cramer. Here is a story from 2000!! (http://www.slate.com/id/1004299/) but more pointedly Slate actually criticized Cramer himself in the summer of 2007! Here...http://www.slate.com/id/2158497/ and here...http://www.slate.com/id/2162460/
So, there is an element of which this is a "f*****g game". I see Stewart's (justified) fury as being far more focused on the media failings rather than the economic failings. Stewart and his enormous team of writers could have found endless other examples (there are some choice CNN clips out there) or, perhaps most tellingly of all, wondered why the U.S. should be confident in taking advice from an economic team that a year ago were cheerleaders for the very approach that got us into this mess, Timothy Geithner in particular.
So, to be fair to him (not that he should care!) my problem is not really that Stewart is behind the ball, nor that his point isn't right (I think some of the criticism of the report of Robert Peston reflects Stewart's point - the idea that Peston was somehow immoral for reporting dodgy practicies is bizarre).
My criticism of Stewart is that I can't help but feel this is a case of point scoring rather than real satirical commentary - I wouldn't agree that Stewart has any intention of really questioning the artifice beneath all this.
I'm reminded of the way Chris Morris used to dislike Have I Got News for You for the same reason; laughing at this stuff is easy, linking it to the bigger stuff is where it's tragically funny. Which of course all the best comedy is.