tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post705947878826184764..comments2023-10-17T05:18:36.318-07:00Comments on <i>Watchdogs and Lapdogs</i>: Does the New York Times envy The Daily Show?M. Deryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post-25026141871283427492008-09-28T09:57:00.000-07:002008-09-28T09:57:00.000-07:00Abe makes some intriguing points. Does Stewart's s...Abe makes some intriguing points. Does Stewart's social role as a comedian in some way de-fang him, i.e., make the politicians he skewers feel as if he's...just kidding, and therefore not a genuine threat in the way that a pit-bull investigative reporter presumably would be? Also, Abe, if you're analogizing Stewart's show to 30 ROCK's tongue-in-cheek riff on GE, what, exactly, would the parallel be? Who owns Comedy Central? Does Stewart ever mock his corporate master(s) outright? If so, how pointedly does he mock them? Or is it just the usual playful ribbing, in the Letterman-mocks-GE mode---harmless japes that never go for the jugular, exposing corporate wrongdoing in a way that would really hurt the company's stock valuation? One might argue that such ribbing serves two purposes, reaffirming the comedian's "edginess" even as it makes his corporate master look like a good sport for laughing along with the jester's mockery (a shrewd P.R. strategy, as you point out, since it deflects REAL critiques of its corporate conduct).<BR/>Anyway, on to Will's post. Scattered thoughts, hanging questions:<BR/>1. How "brutally honest" IS The Daily Show, really? Sure, the monologues take no prisoners, but every time I watch Stewart's interviews, I cringe at his squirmy, fanboyish vibe, especially in the presence of babe-licious starlets. Some media critics have suggested that an appearance on The Daily Show, running the gauntlet of Stewart's barbs good-naturedly, actually inoculates right-wingers and neocons against truly substantive criticism, burning their public images as self-deprecating nice guys, able to take a joke. Witness Stewart's softball treatment of William Kristol, for example.<BR/>2. Also. WHY "can’t straight news coverage do" what Stewart does? Isn't it because of the persistence of the objectivity doctrine? And the pernicious effects of the right-wing charge that the newsmedia exhibit liberal bias, a charge that arguably has inspired them to overcompensate, rightward, genuflecting before power?<BR/>3. "They’re envious of Jon Stewart’s freedom, so maybe being fair and balanced has turned into their reluctant obligation." But the objectivity doctrine predates The Daily Show by many decades. Didn't spring from Pulitzer's brow, in the age of yellow journalism? You make it sound like a reaction to Stewart.<BR/>4. As for Olbermann, wasn't he sacked not for his watchdog tenacity but for his ideological biases, fine on a political talkshow, but less fine on a news show? What role SHOULD objectivity play, if any? Can we be balanced without being objective? Does the British press (say, The Guardian) offer a model of fair but ideologically inflected newscoverage? Food for thought...M. Deryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post-2326924348772056622008-09-21T08:10:00.000-07:002008-09-21T08:10:00.000-07:00As a refresher, do check out Stewart's appearance ...As a refresher, do check out Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" on YouTube. He addresses all these issues extensively.Movies with Abehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18131694123939904629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post-1309141602103116602008-09-21T08:06:00.000-07:002008-09-21T08:06:00.000-07:00A major part of the reason that Stewart is success...A major part of the reason that Stewart is successful is that he's able to present news with a comedic twist. He's not trying to be taken seriously, but the sad fact is that his reporting is often more accurate and open-minded than the news itself. I'll mention the oft-cited example of his appearance on <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE" REL="nofollow">Crossfire</A> which arguably led to the cancellation of the show.<BR/><BR/>Stewart's point, which is relevant for this discussion, was that "Crossfire" sets out a specific agenda to tackle its guests based on their predisposed beliefs. Stewart's show is perhaps more acceptable because he pokes fun at everybody. Obviously Stewart and the entire "Daily Show" team are steadfast liberals (watch "Indecision 2004" and see just how desperate and certain they are that Bush won't win again), but everything is good fun. He doesn't purport to be reporting the news; his show airs on Comedy Central. <BR/><BR/>Another reason why Stewart might be less dangerous than other commentators: we've discussed the idea that the show "30 Rock," which showcases General Electric as a manipulative corporation out to control the airwaves and thoughts of its viewers, is more permissible because if you show it in a funny way, it's as if it's been discarded. NBC, which is owned by GE, is airing "30 Rock," so how could this possibly be true in real life? I'm not so sure this is the case with Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show," but it's certainly something worth considering.Movies with Abehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18131694123939904629noreply@blogger.com