Breakfast with Jon Stewart, Part Two
Read Part One of this story.
Since I posted the first part of this overly-long and ponderous piece about Jon Stewart's breakfast with the inner circle of print journalism, a number of the people in attendance have written their own accounts of the "informal" get-together.
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz -- whom I can only assume attended a different breakfast with Jon Stewart yesterday morning at the same time -- walked away with the idea that Stewart is full of criticism for cable news and thinks newspaper reporters are just super keen. In his story -- which he titled "Jon Stewart Takes Aim At 24-Hour Cable News 'Beast'" -- he writes...
Jon Stewart ripped the cable news networks Monday as a "brutish, slow-witted beast" and castigated Fox News in particular as "an appendage of the Republican Party"... Stewart included CNN and MSNBC in a far-ranging indictment of what he called "that false sense of urgency they create, the sense that everything is breaking news... The 24-hour networks are now driving the narratives and everyone else is playing catch-up."
Stewart, who is doing his nightly show from both conventions, declared his love for newspapers as a better source of political coverage but said they are fighting "a losing battle because they're getting overshadowed."
The Wall Street Journal's Amy Chozick's breakfast with Stewart seems to me to be a lot more similar to the one I witnessed...
Comedian Jon Stewart had some very unfunny words for the media on Monday, calling cable news networks "a giant monster" and urging newspaper reporters not to fall prey to the 24-hour news cycle.
He urged the print media not to buy into television and campaign spin and to dig deep into stories, even if it means burning bridges with sources and not giving readers exactly what they want. "I think my audience would like to see a naked woman smoking crack... but you've got to draw the line," he said.
It is true that Stewart plowed into cable news. He called Fox News' fake news coverage a "the biggest 'fuck you' to people with brains." But he also said that Fox does the best job of all the cable news networks, because "they have an idea," an agenda, something through which to filter their information. Plus, they give their reporters "cover." Their reporters are free to write their stories as they've been told to write them, without fear of reprisal, because the network makes sure that it's the entity that takes the brunt of the fallout. On the other hand, his view of CNN seems to be a network just bouncing around, following the media cycle, trying to keep up with whatever the big story and the big angle is.
And while he did claim that the 24-hour news channels are ruining political discourse, he did not "declare his love" for newspapers. Not exactly. He did have a lot of great things to say about newspapers and for the reporters sitting around the table before him. But they were definitely not let off the hook.
"I can't believe that, as reporters, you would walk into a 'spin room'," he said, amazed at the journalists' willingness to swallow the bullshit that the campaign and candidates spoon feed them. "How can you keep talking to people who are lying to you?" he asked. "This loveless marriage [between reporters and politicians] has to be unconsummated."
As I said in yesterday's post, this criticism came pretty much at their request, after they wide-eyedly asked Stewart -- who, by the way, is a comedian, in case you weren't aware -- what could be done to restore print journalism to its former place as the apex of political discourse.
"The antidote," Stewart responded, "is to push back. The antidote is to create filters" to remove the muck from the information fish tank, so we can clearly see what's truth and what's political spin. Take the ball away from the cable news networks and do what they're being paid to do. "You're not on anyone's team. You're on our team, clearing our tanks."
And these incredibly respected reporters -- these paragons of print journalism -- scribbled down Jon's responses (which very closely resemble things he's said a million times before), asked more questions with obvious answers, laughed at his many jokes, and would eventually go back to their hotel rooms to write parse out his funniest one-liners and write stories about how newspapers are great and cable news can suck it.
But not before pushing back a bit against Stewart's assessments (and, at one point, pushing the limits on what rational people would consider absurdity).
Part three, I swear to God, will be the final part. (I think.)
Ask
backflip
blinklist
BlogBookmark
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
sk*rt
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the 
RSS
Its terrible when you can learn more from comedy news than real news. I think thats why Jon Stewart is so angry. His famous CNN Crossfire appearance where he told them to "stop hurting america" cut like a knife. Thank goodness that turd of a show was cancelled. Only 1000 more stupid news shows to go.
If by consumed you mean engulfed by the fires of hell--which can accurately portray marriage of a sort.
"This loveless marriage [between reporters and politicians] has to be unconsummated."
Oh Jon, don't you know that it does count as consummation if they give it to you anally?
Our roles in life do not define us it's what we do with those roles. I for one am thankful for Jon Stewart for the following reasons. He has the exposure and the backing to be able to be there and say what he wants to say. He has the balls to say what he feels is right from his perspective and he has the opportunity to shame, albeit briefly, those who purport to gather and despense the truth. I am so tired of newstainment and not because I watch it (I don't) but because I can't have an intelligent conversation with most people because they be(lie)ve everything they see on the 42" screen and try to make me believe it too. I gave up TV 11 years ago and try not to get to caught up in what is being spindoctered this week but from time to time I do read the news online so I can at least have some clue as to what the rest of the world is buzzing about. I say two thumbs up for Jon Stewart and I hope more will follow.
How can FOX fairly and accurately report or opine on this breakfast by lambasting Jon anonymously?
"'A Fox News spokesman, who was authorized to give the network's response to Stewart's comments but declined to be named, replied that "Jon's clearly out of touch," citing a Pew Research Center study showing the network has the most balanced audience in cable news, 39 percent Republicans and 33 percent Democrats. "But being out of touch with mainstream America is nothing new to Jon, as evidenced by the crash-and-burn ratings of this year's Oscars telecast.'" -- Kurtz (The Horror).
A major media outlet makes ad-hominem and illogical attacks on Jon as its' sole rebuttal to legitimate questions he raises as to modern coverage of politics. Behind a veil of anonymity? This only buttresses his point -- FOX insults people with any modicum of intelligence and discourages rational discourse. Granted, Jon used more colorful language to describe FOX, but I would think a journalist with any integrity representing them would have the courage to sign his or her name to the statement.
Superior reporting would require one to actually stand up and be counted at the breakfast instead of engaging in the very same hit and run tactics they were accused of. Perhaps do some of that digging Jon spoke of instead of cowering away from the heart of the issue and attempting to force feed others an unwanted morning-after pill. FOX cannot always abort the truth.
Then again, truth, rational discourse, courage, superior reporting, and FOX go together like toothpaste and orange juice.
Jerry... Jon has never wanted or claimed to be the voice of reason in the media, others have appointed him that role. He's never has taken himself seriously, it's not his fault others do. The MSM could easily police their content themselves but for some reason they resort to relying on a dude from Comedy Central.
Jerry: you're right; technically, he's not a comedian. He's a satirist. Which means that serious critique of the world via humor is part of his job. I don't know if I'd put him up there with the likes of Juvenal, Jonathon Swift, and Mark Twain, but he's following in their footsteps by his commitment to shine a serious light on the world through a non-serious forum.
For further reading on the lack of any true news coverage by any of the main media-outlets, check out the Uncensored Project out of UC Santa Barbara, and their many books uncovering the news out there that Big Media doesn't want you to know. Go Jon Stewart!
i agree, if anyone has any video, it would be great to see the looks on everyone's faces.
meanwhile, I think my audience would like to see a naked woman smoking crack... but you've got to draw the line" ranks up there with "You’re on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls! What is wrong with you?" among great Jon Stewart critiques of the media.
Sad that in today's world only a comedian seems to remember what the news is actually for.
Continued kudos to Jon for having the courage and integrity to take the "news" media to task for the continual, endless transition to corporate squawkboxes. The corporate "news" media has abdicated its responsibility to inform and enlighten the American public, and it's ripe for dismantling in the interest of public good.