Re: All Anyone Will Talk About...

Thank you, KT.
.
JP saves the real point for last:
.
Much easier, too, to make this story about a feud between two cable-TV stars, declare a winner, and move on. Because then we don't have to recognize that this song is about us.
.
"Us" being, of course, the press itself.
.
The "Comedy vs Journalism" (not "Stewart vs Cramer") story is all about the fact that news consumers are desperate for a "Meet The Press" in which the press actually meets the press.

KT:
.
Let's now observe to see if this story is given the context of what Jay Rosen calls "regression toward a phony mean".
.
Rosen explains the phenomenon as such:
.

“I'd take the point, but first someone would have to explain to me what ‘regression toward a phony mean' is.”
.
It means journalists associate the middle with truth, when there may be no reason to.
.
In his 1990 book, See How They Run, former Washington Post reporter Paul Taylor (once seen as heir to David Broder) explained why regression toward a phony mean is so common in journalism. It answers to a need for what he calls “refuge.” Here is what he said:
.

“Sometimes I worry that my squeamishness about making sharp judgments, pro or con, makes me unfit for the slam-bang world of daily journalism. Other times I conclude that it makes me ideally suited for newspapering– certainly for the rigors and conventions of modern ‘objective' journalism. For I can dispose of my dilemmas by writing stories straight down the middle. I can search for the halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone (or some policy or idea) and write my story in that fair-minded place. By aiming for the golden mean, I probably land near the best approximation of truth more often than if I were guided by any other set of compasses– partisan, ideological, pyschological, whatever… Yes, I am seeking truth. But I'm also seeking refuge. I'm taking a pass on the toughest calls I face.”

.
Clearly, there can be something extreme about this squeamishness, too. Clearly, the desire for refuge can get out hand. Writing the news so that it lands somewhere near the “halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone” is not a truthtelling impulse at all, but a refuge-seeking one. and it's possible that this ritual will distort a given story.

.
Do you predict that "this ritual" will "distort" this given story, too, KT?

Poniewozik pretty well nailed it. I stand ready to give much more attention and respect to journos who cop to it and show they've learned from it.

I expect we'll hear a lot of [crickets], though. That, or just subjective denials and misdirection.

KT is this your way of inviting media criticism without actually being a media critic?

Flown: I expect we'll hear a lot of [crickets], though. That, or just subjective denials and misdirection. Yep, journalism is the least introspective profession I can imagine. Which makes it more of a club than a profession (at least at the "elite" levels), doesn't it.

KT, sully had some thoughts on that:
.
Stewart - that little comic with the Droopy voice for Lieberman - is actually becoming an accidental activist. Why he matters, is why South Park matters. He, like Matt and Trey, do not leave aside their own profession from scrutiny: they have the actual balls to take it on. There is a cloying familiarity among many cable show hosts and television personalities. We all have to get along, even though some of us may believe that others of us are very much part of the problem, rather than the solution. And what Stewart has done is rip off that little band-aid of faux solidarity for a modicum of ethical and moral accountability.
.
Now, I know Jim Cramer a little. The reason he crumbled last night, I think, is because deep down, he knows Stewart's right. He isn't that television clown all the way down. And deeper down, he knows it's not all a game - not now they've run off with grandpa's retirement money.
.
It's not enough any more, guys, to make fantastic errors and then to carry on authoritatively as if nothing just happened. You will be called on it. In some ways, the blogosphere is to MSM punditry what Stewart is to Cramer: an insistent and vulgar demand for some responsibility, some moral and ethical accountabilty for previous decisions and pronouncements.
.
Braver, please. And louder.

So KT, how does it feel, as a journalist, to have a comedian do your job for you? Or a TV critic say what you won't?

Thanks for the link, KT.
.
But it is a problem when reporters either become too close to their subjects to treat them skeptically, or become so obsessed with access that they are leery of being too skeptical: i.e., "If I do that, they'll never talk to me again."
.
I know you can't comment on your own profession but I hope all of your colleagues reflect on this.

Morning Joe cheered Cramer and laughed about Stewart using his very large staff of hunderds to do research and stuff on before last night. This morning. Crickets.

Karen, thank you so much for posting this link. I've been watching the Daily Show for about 6 years now and have seen it grow and mature (I use the term loosely) into something of an outlet for my generation.

Jon isn't simply going after the media because it'll boost ratings, but because he is genuinely frustrated and upset, as we all are. He wasn't trying to play gotcha with Cramer, he was being absolutely sincere and voicing his frustrations in an honest way, something no other member of the media has been or is willing to do thus far. If you watch the unedited version he says his mom is 75 years old and she's lost a huge percentage of her 401k, this thing is personal for him and a whole lot of us.

Now the last thing I would do is turn Jon into something of an idol for us Millennials (because that's not what he wants to be and thats not what I want him to be) but he has been an honest and sober voice. In the process he has made us all laugh when we really want scream and cry. He's not a leader, he's not a fighter, he's not a prophet, he's just a guy who's worried about his family and his kids future and needs to vent along with the rest of us...just so happens he can do it on national TV.

Hey folks maybe we ought to comment directly on JP's post and perhaps if we comment other places link to it. After all, so far he is the only critic of Cramer/Stewart so-called throw down that actually go the larger point. the least we can do is to make sure he gets more traffic than let's say Scherer.

"I know you can't comment on your own profession but I hope all of your colleagues reflect on this."
.
I'm actually a little curious about that. What, exactly, is the punishment for speaking unappreciated truths from inside the bubble? Are you ostracized by colleagues? Punished by editors? Or is there just a general practice in the business of "seeking refuge".

Insightful post wvng! Some of the financial voices having been scared out of their wits by this meltdown that occured more dramatically and quicker than they expected. Some recognize the carnage which has occured will mkae some investors reluctant to ever trust the market or their advice ever again.

Interesting that you have CNBC talker and looker Erin Burnett suddenly attempting to branch out and appearing on Trump's reality show and on Bill Mahr. I sense she sees some of the writing on the wall and is looking to separate herself from CNBC and seek other opportunities. In my opinion Kudlow, Santelli, Bartiromo and Cramer are toast because they participated and fueled the unbridled enthusiasm of the last 4 or 5 years. Their crediblity is severely damaged. Cramer came on Stewart's show and basically asked for a pardon for his sins.

KT, thanks for linking JP. I have already read it and was going to ask someone to post his words here. I was also impressed by what he had to say the other day. He makes more sense than MS.

The MSM got the pre-Iraq reporting terribly terribly wrong. And they're not doing such a hot job right now (the current meme being pushed is the "Obama's doing too much" regurtitation).

I've seen very talking heads take on the stupid charge that Obama is pushing socialism or that the market's tanking is Obama's fault. Imo, most "neutral" journos are scared that Fox will call them "biased" if they speak commen sense.

Stewart, Letterman, Maddow, Olbermann - who'd of thunk, you can be honest, credible, respected AND get ratings!

dune - and, in Stewart's case, tell fart jokes.

wvng - That's the funny beast that's comedy. You can do something as crude as a fart joke, and still have the credibility you need to make an actual salient point. Look at George Carlin (R.I.P.).
.
Colbert and Stewart remain our Court Jesters, meant in the most flattering way possible. In comedy, there is truth, that can only be palatable with a laugh sometimes.
.
As so many people here point out all the time, the most galling thing remains the fact that comedy shows do more piercing investigative journalism than real professional journalism.

It's fun to watch Jon Stewart work to regain relevance with a basic-cable pillow fight. Not terribly interesting or necessary, but fun nonetheless.