In that case, Stewart did, of course, argue that they were poisoning the well, but refused to acknowledge that he too was “poisoning the well.” Yes, his show is clearly labeled satire, on a comedy network, etc. but he has done as much, and I think most would acknowledge more since he has a far wider audience, to direct people’s views about politics and politicians than Crossfire ever did.

The studies that Rick and Steve point to are evidence to the wide influence he and his show have. I think it is a reasonable question, as Dan asks, to consider what ethical responsibility Stewart has given the tremendous influence he wields. It is directly akin to Hollywood folks who insist that what they do in movies doesn’t influence the public and yet the corporations betray that lie when they pay millions for product placement in those same movies.

The Daily Show is one of the most influential shows on television today (why else did all those candidates make an appearance over the last 10 years?). It is reasonable to ask if Stewart and his team are being good stewards of that influence.

I would still argue that there is a substantial difference between the roles of Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer and that they therefore have very different moral obligations to the viewer. Jon Stewart presents himself as a comedian on a fake news program, and in doing frees himself from many of the ethical hurdles journalists must leap through. His program expects that viewers will disagree with his opinions because they know that the show is highly subjective. On the other hand, Jim Cramer presents himself as an expert giving people advice based on quantitative analysis, and therefore, his responsibility to provide the audience with accurate, unbiased information is greater. If he is a journalist, as another poster suggested, than he has more of a moral obligation to act according to journalistic principles… to perform thorough fact checking and view all information through an objective lens.

But then again, who is to say that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are not representations of a new iteration of the news where satire becomes more important than content. Much like the birth of New Journalism and its subjective viewpoint did during the 1960s and 70s, Fake News is forcing even the major networks to reconsider how they present themselves. I am curious if, in his ability to influence so many people, Stewart has assumed some sort of new role of journalist-social commentator, even if it is a role that he rejects.

This is more interesting than correcting papers. But….

In my 1) I was reacting to your characterization that Crossfire was canceled after Stewart lampooned them. That isn’t true. It was canceled after Stewart appeared on the show and didn’t lampoon them, but said some things that were very perceptive: and I think he went beyond just “you’re partisan hacks” to “your show is poisoning the well, and not because its partisan hacks”. I think you’ve overlooked that.

2) If Stewart’s ire is aimed principally CNBC (and it is, we agree), then letting CNBC off as “entertainment” is mighty disingenuous of you. Its a news channel, it has a responsibility to report what it knows…and even CRAMER said that he knew stuff was going on and didn’t report it on air. So I strongly disagree that Stewart’s ire is misdirected there: its absolutely in the right place, just that CNBC isn’t alone.

Re: Cramer, Cramer’s a part of CNBC, at least on Mad Money. So if he knows something then he’s responsible when he tells people that Bear Stearns is strong and hold on to it and then have it go belly up 5 days later. Did Cramer simply get it wrong? Or was he duplicitous? We’ll never know, but he’s an insider. Keep that in mind.

More importantly though, Cramer was barely mentioned in the original Stewart broadcast. Cramer didn’t become the focus until Cramer complained that he was misquoted and things were taken out of context. Stewart took that on: Cramer was caught saying things he denied saying. And that is properly directed ire in my book.

3) In part I think you’ve misunderstood my point, due no doubt to my lack of expression. Stewart is up front: he labels himself a fake news show, a fake journalist, a comedian. His principal aim is to entertain. Crossfire and Mad Money can’t claim to be entertainment when what they actually state they are is news analysts and their aim is to inform and in Cramer’s case advise. So sorry, but if you claim to inform and advise, it seems to me to be disingenuous to then relabel and claim to be “entertainment” when mistakes are pointed out. If Cramer along with CNBC want to be “business news” and analysts of that news, then claims of entertainment and failing to report things they know is true is dangerous and they bear responsibility for that failure.

Stewart is partisan; no question he makes more fun of conservatives than liberals, esp. when taking on cable news channels. But then, Coulter, O’Reilly, Carlson and the like leave themselves open to such lampooning. But so what? O’Reilly and Carlson and Coulter are partisan too, but why aren’t you taking them to task for not recognizing the limits of Stewart’s show? Interesting, no?

BTW, I don’t watch Cramer, but I have to say that I think he handled the interview well and sheesh, he’s one smart cookie.

Re: Olberman, there was more than one, actually, and he made snarky remarks when he David Gregory on too.

Anyway……good discussion

Oh, and re: your brother’s point: I’ve often heard from people about how for a certain demographic there main news source is The Daily Show. But then they’re missing half the humor: half the jokes require one to know something more about the subject than The Daily Show “reports”. At least in my view….

1) I am not sure it is quite right to say “Mad Money” (to pick on Jim Cramer) is news or entertainment. One or the other as if those are the only choices and never overlap. I do not think “Mad Money” is entertainment (so I might be disagreeing just a tad with Chris). It is about finance and financial advice – but packaged in a way to be entertaining and engaging. Which is to say neither is it “investigative news” (disagreeing with those who say CNBC is not allowed to critique a president’s handling of the economy because they failed to uncover “corporate deceit” as if anyone else succeeded).

2) Chris has been far kinder and even-handed than I am. He says he still likes Stewart and “The Daily Show”. I do not. I used to watch it and enjoy it. But not after 2008. I do expect “news satire” still to be somewhat fair/balanced/accurate in how it presents the news – even while it takes that as the basis for humor and satire. Studies show that many young Americans get their news from “The Daily Show” (they take it seriously along with the humor) and surely Stewart knows this else he would not engage in this sort of seriousness.

3) I do think much of this has to do with politics – not “news versus entertainment”. When in the past has Jon Stewart ever given a flip about CNBC? It is painfully clear that he turned his guns on them for one and only one precipitating reason.

4) I admit to some curiosity as to why some defend Stewart so passionately. Which is fine of course and people have done so well and intelligently. But Chris and I clearly pushed a button here (rightly or wrongly). What button did we push?

1) Yes, it was after Stewart was on the show, as I pointed out. I never really liked Crossfire (in fact, as I have said, I don’t like either Crossfire or Mad Money) but all…well I won’t rehash the Crossfire thing, you can read my other post from two years ago about that. Stewart wasn’t saying anything we didn’t know and the show was always about partisan hacks hacking each other.

2) Cramer’s statements (when allowed to make them) in Stewart’s full interview were pretty fair and Stewart actually often said it wasn’t about Cramer or his show but the network. Cramer’s show is about giving advice and he got some wrong, as did all financial advisors, but it is not an investigative show, that is the difference. Stewart’s ire is misdirected.

3) Sort of. He certainly is not any less partisan that Crossfire was and often is misleading with their pieces. When others complain their defense is “we’re entertainment!” That goes back to Joe’s comment and I agree with him that this is the nature of satire and I don’t mind that. I just think Stewart ought to acknowledge the limited nature of other shows, not just his own.

4) True! He did a great piece on Olberman and Matthews fighting (and Scarborough) during the election. Let’s see where they go from here…

1) Crossfire was not canceled after Stewart lampooned it. It was canceled after Stewart appeared on the show and called them on the carpet to their faces for being partisan hacks and disingenuous, and those facts were hurting us, the electorate. CNN quickly realized he was right and pulled the plug.

2) CSNBC describes itself as a NEWS organization specializing in business news, up to the second market coverage and business information. Jim Cramer may claim that he’s mostly entertainment, but that’s a lie. His website explicitly says that he guides the viewer/callers through “the confusing jungle of investing, navigating through both opportunities and pitfalls with one goal in mind — to help you make money.” I’m sorry, that’s not entertainment; and he does give advice: not just once in a while, but EVERY SINGLE TIME HIS SHOW AIRS HE ADVISES ON WHAT STOCKS TO SELL, TO BUY, TO HOLD! There’s an entire segment in EVERY SHOW dedicated to this dispensing of advice. The delivery may be entertaining, but the content is not entertainment. So how should a program that bills itself as having insight on stocks and investing on a network that bills itself as a network for business, market and investing *news* not be judged as *news*? That’s like saying you as an academic shouldn’t be measured by academic standards cause you’re entertaining in class. Cramer himself is a journalist, among other hats. He was editor and wrote for the Harvard Crimson, then the Tallahassee Democrat and the LA Herald Examiner, and is a co-founder of the American Lawyer, a self-described journal of *NEWS* for lawyers. SO let’s see, we have a chap with journalist credentials who reports on business and stock news and offers advice based on that reporting, on a network touting itself as a news source specializing in stocks, investment, and business. Please, explain again why Cramer is not a journalist or not to be held to a standard like the 9 o’clock news? He has better journalistic credentials than most local newscasters! So, respectfully, I submit that Cramer the journalist working on a news network with a program that reports and analyzes sector of the news is in fact doing the news. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well, chances are….

3) The difference between Stewart and Cramer and the like is that Stewart is up front: he deals mostly in satire and lampooning, its what they do. He doesn’t offer advice on how to invest your money, or so-called in depth commentary on the days events. They are worlds apart. Stewart does not offer advice: the joke is important. They bill themselves as fake news, they’re on a network that is about entertainment—and entertainment to make you laugh and poke fun. Cramer is telling you the days events and giving authoritative advice on how to act–and withholding information while doing so! Whatever Stewart’s faults, hypocrisy is not among them.

4) He actually has made fun of Olberman. He has interviewed Maddows, but I don’t recall that he’s made fun of her yet.

The point I was trying to make in response to Dean Brady’s is that while shows like Cramer’s “Mad Money” are meant to be “entertainment-news” programs rather than straight-up journalistic endeavors, it’s important for them to make sure the “entertainment” part of the equation doesn’t interfere with the integrity of the show. It’s one thing for the Daily Show to have a semi-apparent news bias mixed with their entertainment approach. It’s another for a show like Mad Money to sell itself as news (which, I would argue, it absolutely does – CNBC may have varied programming, but “entertainment” should not be part of it, and perhaps that is best left for a different blog post ), then fail to report on issues (such as crooked lending or trading practices) that have the potential to seriously disrupt a viewer’s financial well-being, and then say “well you shouldn’t have listened to us, we’re just entertainment!”

If anything, I think we can agree that BOTH shows would like to hind behind the “entertainment” facade and make snarky comments until criticized, only to respond with “but we’re an entertainment show!” and be absolved of any responsibility. I think that because they are held in such high regard on such a powerful, wide-reaching medium, both shows need to accept some responsibility that both (and, one could argue, many cable news shows) have perhaps not been perfect in upholding.

In short: Dean Brady said he just didn’t care for John Stewart’s pompous hypocrisy, and I’m arguing that it has exited in shows like Mad Money for just as long, if not longer. I’m also NOT arguing, for clarification, that this makes the Stewart approach “right”.

The problem seems to be that TDS is where (according to surveys) most college age and 20 something adults go for their news. They may, or may not, be able to discern between satire, comedy, hypocrisy and news. But honestly, when people like Ryan honestly, and fervently, believe that Jon Stewart has never twisted, mis-represented, or biased a story in the interest of humor, then we have a serious problem.

Unlike my brother, I don’t like TDS. And I don’t like it for the reason you all seem to point to–he makes a game of something serious, and fails miserably at reporting on (or at least lampooning) both sides.

In an ideal world, we would see Jon Stewart on a different show and see him talking about news, and say “ahh, he is trying to be funny again–nothing newsie to get here… move along…” BUT somehow each time he seems to actually be treated as someone with a sober, insightful perspective.

So, I say shame on us. Shame on America for letting this line of thinking poison the well of debate and discussion.

And shame on us for letting him influence the thoughts and attitudes of what many believe was the pivotal group in this last election.

And–since I realize what I just wrote is intended to be inflammatory, let me help aim your flame-throwers… I am not saying that the election was (necessarily) wrong in its outcome, but rather than the electorate was misled into thinking they were an informed one.