It is true that I tend to watch it on Hulu since the air time, 8 pm, is right when we are putting the kids to bed. Some have suggested (see the first link) that this means avoiding commercials, but Hulu does have commercials and I am happy to have them play through for the convenience of watching the show at my convenience. Some efforts to save the show even included a “Subway eat-in” to show support for a primary sponsor who had product placement within the show.

So I hope that they save Chuck. After all, now he knows kung fu.

 

 

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?

And I have been mulling this all day. In the end, I don’t think people are defending Stewart as much as they are sharing his outrage at the financial collapse.

I went back and watched Stewart’s complete interview with Cramer again. While I still take issue with Stewart’s manner, placing himself above anyone else in the media by wearing the shroud of populism, what is clear is that Stewart was simply funneling his anger at the financial crisis upon Cramer. This became crystal clear to me when Stewart was criticizing Cramer and his show and when Cramer tries to defend himself (which was reasonable IMHO since Stewart was attacking Cramer directly) Stewart parried and said (paraphrasing), “Don’t you get it? It is not about you.” It is, he said, about the financial news media. Why didn’t you all reveal that all this was going on before? Certainly many of those who commented on my previous post have the same emotion and feeling.

This is, needless to say, a resaonable sentiment given the circumstances. People are angry and frustrated and cannot understand why no one is being held accountable. This is “the button” that we have pushed, clearly. It is not that we criticized Stewart, rather he represents the feelings of many and so our criticism was viewed as a disavowal or rejection of their outrage.

That certainly was not my intent. There is no excuse for the graft and the greed that drove our economy to this place. Finding a precise point of fault is a little more complicated, which is why very few other than Bernie Madoff have had any charges brought against them (and some continue to receive their bonuses, as we all heard in the news today).

But is the “financial news media” really the primary culprit? What about the SEC who were told something like 10 years ago that Madoff’s operation was a Ponzi scheme? The CEOs who oversaw and directed these schemes?

As Mr. Huff so astutely pointed out in his comment, the real question is one of ethics. Who is responsible for what? I was not and have not rejected the basis of Stewart’s criticism, either of Cramer or Crossfire, rather I take issue with his lack of refelction upon his own role. Again, Mr. Huff said it best.

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.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

1. I like the Daily Show very much and find it very funny. I also think such shows are an important part of a society. (And the British do this better than the US, although “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” is pretty good too.)
2. I generally like Jon Stewart as well.
3. Shows like Crossfire, Mad Money, Hardball, and (especially) Olberman’s Countdown are not exempt from critique, far from it! (But, BTW, why hasn’t Stewart ripped into Olberman or Madow’s programs? They have some serious credibility issues too.)
4. I simply find Stewart’s critiques disingenuous.

 

Llewellyn also has a new video podcast of his own called “Car Pool” that looks like fun. His site is “Llewtube” or you can search for it on iTunes. In Car Pool Llewellyn simply drives some of his celebrity buddies around and records their conversations. Of the 4 that are currently up, one is Jonathan Ross. I have not seen any of them yet, but note they have an “explicit” tag. Those who follow the BBC know that Ross has a tendency to use colorful language.

 

Check out the video below.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkH7cq3HinY

 

Update: ‘Saturday Night Live’ says bailout skit ‘didn’t meet our standards’

Update: A “Saturday Night Live” skit that skewered President Bush, Democrats, homebuyers and subprime lenders for their roles in the mortgage meltdown was removed from the program’s website because it “didn’t meet out standards,” a spokesman for the show said Tuesday. An edited version of the skit will be re-posted online soon, the spokesman said.

The skit, a parody of a C-SPAN news conference, ridiculed subprime borrowers, housing speculators and Herb and Marion Sandler, the real-life couple who built Golden West Financial into a subprime lending powerhouse and sold it to Wachovia before the subprime collapse. At one point in the skit, the Herb Sandler character says he made $24 billion off the subprime boom. Graphics then appear labeling the Sandlers as “People who should be shot.”

“Upon review, we caught certain elements in the sketch that didn’t meet our standards,” a spokesman for the program said in an e-mail message today. “We took it down and made some minor changes, and it will be back online soon.”

Conservative blogger Michele Malkin, who called the skit “hilarious, dead-on, and surprisingly honest,” reports that the Sandlers, prominent donors to liberal causes, were “seething over the skit” before it was removed from the “SNL” website.

The blog Hot Air is also chasing the disappearing video, and readers on that blog found the video last night on You Tube — although by Tuesday morning the You Tube video had been removed “due to a copywright claim by NBC Universal.” The video was still available, however, on the site snlbailout.com, which also links to media coverage of the skit and its disappearance.

The new version is up and according to “Deadline Hollywood Daily” it was edited due to possible legal action from a couple lampooned in the skit.

But anyone who actually saw that video could see this might be a lawsuit waiting to happen. Because SNL labeled Herb Sandler and his wife Marion, the real-life former owners of Oakland’s Golden West Financial (aka World Savings), as “people who should be shot” and accused them of predatory lending that brought down Wachovia Bank even though no charges have been filed. NBC told me just now they never received any legal threat from the Sandlers. [Though the couple did give an angry interview to The Associated Press about the SNL sketch.]

Instead, the network claimed: ”Upon review, we caught certain elements in the sketch that didn’t meet our standards. We took it down and made some minor changes and it will be back online soon.” Specifically, NBC said it has edited out the chyron on-screen text, “People who should be shot” that appeared beneath the Sandler’ lookalikes, as well as the “allegations of corruption” made against the couple.

Still, a funny skit. I was particularly amused by Soros being identified as “Owner” of the Democratic party.

 

Edith Macefield died at home, just the way she wanted.

The Ballard woman who captured hearts and admirers around the world when she stubbornly turned down $1 million to sell her home to make way for a commercial development died Sunday of pancreatic cancer. She was 86.

… In the last year of her life, she forged an unlikely friendship with a kindred soul, Barry Martin, the senior superintendent on the construction project engulfing her home. They met when he started working at the site.

It started with an offer to drive her to the hairdresser, then a doctor’s appointment. He made sure she had food, ran to get groceries for her, picked up prescriptions, cooked her dinner.

… Some wonder at her stories, hinting at being a spy during World War II and touring with some of the most famous big bands of the day. She talked about attending teas and dances, once finding herself in conversation with Adolf Hitler.

Her friends never doubted a word.