Monday, October 18, 2004
Jon Stewart vs. The Media? I want in!
Chances are, if you're reading this blog that you've already seen or at least heard of this link. It's a clip of Jon Stewart bashing the show 'Crossfire' on CNN. Stewart was on the show purportedly to promote his new book, but instead went on a serious tirade about how the media was being too soft on politicians, not "holding their feet to the fire" and how they are "partisan hacks". I do agree with Stewart on these points; the 'news sources' that Americans have come to rely on are often just forums for the two parties to output press releases and talking points. There is often no fact checking, no in-depth analysis, and no real information.
But the clip shows more than that. It's clear that the show is indeed "theater" as Stewart accuses midway through the clip. They don't deny that. But what is interesting is that Tucker Carlson (the guy on the right, literally and figuratively) refuses to stop playing his part. It's clear that everyone involved knows that this isn't a forum for debate, it's news entertainment. Carlson isn't pissed just because Stewart is criticizing the show, he's pissed because he feels Stewart should know better. It's like someone coming onto a WWF Royal Rumble and trying to plead with the wrestlers that they are promoting violence. Come on, Jon Stewart, we all know what's going on, just play along!
At the end, Stewart says that although the alleged hacks themselves believe in their party, they don't make honest arguments, and that they believe the "ends justify the means". This is a point I've tried to touch on in the past. I realize that the Bush campaign isn't evil, that they are doing what they think is best for America, and I realize that sometimes they feel the need to bend the truth, with situations like Swift Boats Veterans for Truth, and Kerry's record on taxes. Basically, they believe the populace to be stupid and pliable, so they feel that the ends do indeed justify the means.
I've often said in the past that humanity is stupid and pliable. But maybe it's not so simple. Humanity... well, Americans, at least, are lazy. We switch on the TV or open up a newspaper/web browser and get our news from one or two sources. We can't help but be swayed by the media that presents us with a skewed picture. The media, and the politicians, have a responsibility to the truth. Americans can't possibly be expected to research for themselves whether SBVT had an actual case against Kerry (they did not), so when SBVT got media coverage as if they were a legitimate source, people assumed it to be a truthful story. Yes, you can blame the populace for being gullible, but you can't blame them for believing organizations that are supposed to be held to a higher standard. So is it a result of us being stupid or lazy? The answer is yes.
If we held the media to a higher standard of truth, wouldn't they then hold the politicians to that higher standard as well, holding their feet to the proverbial fire? Well, that's the theory. We want our media to be sacred, to be the Fourth Estate, to tell us the truth and to be objective. But the media is a business. Does the truth really make money? Or do shows like Crossfire, where people yell at each other, like a sort of intellectual sport? Couldn't we live in world where both sides presented logical, rational arguments, and let the people decide that way? I believe people to be stupid at times, but if they were exposed to less fluff and more substance, perhaps our votes would be less fluff and more substance. The real problem here is that not unlike a prisoner's dilemma, whichever side resorted to mudslinging would probably win the minds of the populace, and both sides would be forced to do it. I guess that's where we find ourselves today, stuck on the sub-optimal end of a nationwide prisoner's dilemma.
And to break it up, what can we do? Impose stricter libel laws? Have government oversight of the media? (yeah, that'll work) As citizens, I'd like to think we could switch off terrible shows like Crossfire. And I'd like to think journalists could hold themselves to a higher standard. But, dear reader, we both know those things aren't going to happen. So who will impose this order? I wish I knew. And unfortunately, Jon Stewart doesn't have all the answers for us. Please tell me somebody else does.
But the clip shows more than that. It's clear that the show is indeed "theater" as Stewart accuses midway through the clip. They don't deny that. But what is interesting is that Tucker Carlson (the guy on the right, literally and figuratively) refuses to stop playing his part. It's clear that everyone involved knows that this isn't a forum for debate, it's news entertainment. Carlson isn't pissed just because Stewart is criticizing the show, he's pissed because he feels Stewart should know better. It's like someone coming onto a WWF Royal Rumble and trying to plead with the wrestlers that they are promoting violence. Come on, Jon Stewart, we all know what's going on, just play along!
At the end, Stewart says that although the alleged hacks themselves believe in their party, they don't make honest arguments, and that they believe the "ends justify the means". This is a point I've tried to touch on in the past. I realize that the Bush campaign isn't evil, that they are doing what they think is best for America, and I realize that sometimes they feel the need to bend the truth, with situations like Swift Boats Veterans for Truth, and Kerry's record on taxes. Basically, they believe the populace to be stupid and pliable, so they feel that the ends do indeed justify the means.
I've often said in the past that humanity is stupid and pliable. But maybe it's not so simple. Humanity... well, Americans, at least, are lazy. We switch on the TV or open up a newspaper/web browser and get our news from one or two sources. We can't help but be swayed by the media that presents us with a skewed picture. The media, and the politicians, have a responsibility to the truth. Americans can't possibly be expected to research for themselves whether SBVT had an actual case against Kerry (they did not), so when SBVT got media coverage as if they were a legitimate source, people assumed it to be a truthful story. Yes, you can blame the populace for being gullible, but you can't blame them for believing organizations that are supposed to be held to a higher standard. So is it a result of us being stupid or lazy? The answer is yes.
If we held the media to a higher standard of truth, wouldn't they then hold the politicians to that higher standard as well, holding their feet to the proverbial fire? Well, that's the theory. We want our media to be sacred, to be the Fourth Estate, to tell us the truth and to be objective. But the media is a business. Does the truth really make money? Or do shows like Crossfire, where people yell at each other, like a sort of intellectual sport? Couldn't we live in world where both sides presented logical, rational arguments, and let the people decide that way? I believe people to be stupid at times, but if they were exposed to less fluff and more substance, perhaps our votes would be less fluff and more substance. The real problem here is that not unlike a prisoner's dilemma, whichever side resorted to mudslinging would probably win the minds of the populace, and both sides would be forced to do it. I guess that's where we find ourselves today, stuck on the sub-optimal end of a nationwide prisoner's dilemma.
And to break it up, what can we do? Impose stricter libel laws? Have government oversight of the media? (yeah, that'll work) As citizens, I'd like to think we could switch off terrible shows like Crossfire. And I'd like to think journalists could hold themselves to a higher standard. But, dear reader, we both know those things aren't going to happen. So who will impose this order? I wish I knew. And unfortunately, Jon Stewart doesn't have all the answers for us. Please tell me somebody else does.
# posted by Stuart @ 3:59 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I have the answers:
Don't vote. Do too many drugs and women. Die when you're thirty.
Don't vote. Do too many drugs and women. Die when you're thirty.
# posted by 
: 9:15 PM
: 9:15 PM
Well, I respectfully disagree; I think that while debates and shows like Crossfire are inherently biased, they could stand to do a lot more honest debates and answering questions that were actually asked than they do right now. I don't mind that a news source is partisan or biased, but they do need to base these views on logical, factual arguments.
In a way, this is a politics and ethics issue, because the two parties are as responsible for the content as much as anyone, but that's not to say the media is blameless. I don't think anyone would say that the media couldn't improve on its fidelity to the truth. There are countless examples of the media rushing to false conclusions from false data (SBVT), or even rushing to correct conclusions from false data, (Dan Rather's National Guard docs). But that doesn't excuse them. Like I said, the ends don't justify the means. And this isn't just a politics issue. Think about new health and science issues (the Vioxx controversy), international news, etc. Everyone involved has not done a good job of making honest arguments from honest sources. Can you really say that Stewart is wrong here?
Your other main point was that Stewart basically doesn't have a really good basis on which to be making these accusations. I sort of agree; it's easy to point out flaws, it's quite another to fix them. That's basically what I'm doing with my posts lately. So he's a comedian, not a news media expert. Does that make his opinion invalid? I don't think so. It's not as if he was doing this on the Daily Show. He was doing it on Crossfire; perhaps he was supposed to be there just to promote his book, and perhaps he got out of line by taking himself too seriously. But you know, the first step is recognizing there's a problem, and I think he's trying.
In a way, this is a politics and ethics issue, because the two parties are as responsible for the content as much as anyone, but that's not to say the media is blameless. I don't think anyone would say that the media couldn't improve on its fidelity to the truth. There are countless examples of the media rushing to false conclusions from false data (SBVT), or even rushing to correct conclusions from false data, (Dan Rather's National Guard docs). But that doesn't excuse them. Like I said, the ends don't justify the means. And this isn't just a politics issue. Think about new health and science issues (the Vioxx controversy), international news, etc. Everyone involved has not done a good job of making honest arguments from honest sources. Can you really say that Stewart is wrong here?
Your other main point was that Stewart basically doesn't have a really good basis on which to be making these accusations. I sort of agree; it's easy to point out flaws, it's quite another to fix them. That's basically what I'm doing with my posts lately. So he's a comedian, not a news media expert. Does that make his opinion invalid? I don't think so. It's not as if he was doing this on the Daily Show. He was doing it on Crossfire; perhaps he was supposed to be there just to promote his book, and perhaps he got out of line by taking himself too seriously. But you know, the first step is recognizing there's a problem, and I think he's trying.
You suggested stricter libel laws, which they have here in Australia and actually provide a problem in another way because investigative reporters get sued much more easily. Thus those programs that are actually committed to watchdog journalism often get involved in, to use the Republican Party's buzzword "frivoulous lawsuits." This provides less incentive to uncover stories.
The biggest difference between the Australian media and American media, however, is the amount of content and the specialization of all media in America, including news programming. Most people here only get 5 channels, so the news shows have to appeal to everybody, thus keeping them centrally balanced. In the US, of course, shows can specialize to fit the demographic that they want. That is the major, major, problem with American newsmedia today. The cultural schism between right and left is facilitated because both sides can get information tailored to their world view. Consideration of the validity of the other side, or the weaknesses of one's own side is no longer a problem.
A note on American laziness Stu; I think you dont give us enough credit. But that's another argument for another day.
The biggest difference between the Australian media and American media, however, is the amount of content and the specialization of all media in America, including news programming. Most people here only get 5 channels, so the news shows have to appeal to everybody, thus keeping them centrally balanced. In the US, of course, shows can specialize to fit the demographic that they want. That is the major, major, problem with American newsmedia today. The cultural schism between right and left is facilitated because both sides can get information tailored to their world view. Consideration of the validity of the other side, or the weaknesses of one's own side is no longer a problem.
A note on American laziness Stu; I think you dont give us enough credit. But that's another argument for another day.
I don't think its so much a matter of fair and balanced, but a matter of honest discussion and exchange of ideas. shows like crossfire today just spew the standard spin, as opposed to discussing opposing positions on issues and their relative merits. Jon Stewart was pleading for a debate that helps inform americans, leaving them in a better position to understand and make decisions on issues and representatives. simply presenting the spin of the day that is obviously dishonest, or at least slanted, does nothing but further the rift between the left and the right.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 3:44 PM
: 3:44 PM << Home
