dagblog - Comments for "Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government"

"THE PEASANTS ARE

Don Key — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:59:10 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

"THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING"

They're not that bad, dick (maybe smell a little).

AC, (or perhaps I should say

O¿O in the crowd — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:58:17 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

AC, (or perhaps I should say ACA)
U R Correct but CNBC is an animal all it's own. CNBC is kinda the "religion" of Wall Streeters.
So you have the religion of Wall Street preaching the Wall Street religion for the Wall Street cardinals and bishops and ministers who just happen to be CEOs, CFOs etc...

It is amazing that GE sits back and lets them get away with it. With the exception of weeknights on MSNBC between 8-10 I have sworn off anything GE.

sideComedians have always

Don Key — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:55:45 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

sideComedians have always been oracles of truth when the establishment is failing on that front (some of the court jesters in my time were Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, etc.). Usually they are only heard by a small minority at first, but maybe cable TV has changed that.

Aside: I think Stewart laid off Cramer to a great extent, personally, to skewer CNBC (to quote a Carly Simon song…). In one of the clips Stewart threw to, Cramer all but admitted he spread rumors talking down stocks that he had bought short on. I’m not sure, but this sounds highly illegal; like a reverse kind of insider trading. Anyway, as Mike A points out above, the media in their role as watchdog, probably peaking in the ‘70s, has been dubious at many times but declined noticeably, at least, since Reagan’s seduction of it. Much of the timidity of media can be traced to a concerted effort by the Right to influence it of course (liberal elites, indeed). Rupert Murdoch continued his $multi-billion campaign begun in Australia and England to spread his corporate-conservative agenda, buying media across America and creating Fox with RW media guru, Roger Ailes.

I don’t know if there was a golden age of journalism; maybe post-WWII, with the Murrow boys, Cronkite, I.F. Stone, Friendly, Hewit, etc (Jack Anderson, a loose canon no doubt, used to be nationally syndicated in Sundays’ Parade). But, I do think traditional media sank to new lows with the rise of Limbaugh and the Gingrich revolution and reached a height of sycophancy when Bush/Cheney came along to take advantage of a media that had been corporatized to the point of being an entertainment product biased against reality and dealing emotion like a drug.

And with the 9/11 Patriot-Fascism (where even comedians like Bill Maher get censored) the press became more of a PR industry; the government’s spokesman. We have to praise reporters like the McClatchy crew, Daniel Froomkin, Charlie Savage, Dana Priest, and dozens of other local reporters who do their jobs in the face of losing their jobs for honest reporting.

But, clichéd as it sounds; we are living through a historical change in information dissemination. The internet can’t be so easily controlled, merged, corporatized (as long as net neutrality and availability aren’t restricted). Like the underground press at crucial points in the past, the internet provides an outlet for alternative voices and truth-telling (but also, of course, for deceitful propaganda). Maybe, the balance will restore things to a peoples’ perspective.

I did not see Cramer on

neesy08 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:29:49 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

I did not see Cramer on Stewart's show, so I only know what I have seen posted on the blogs. If what I have read is accurtae, I have to say hats off to Stewart! I always thought of Cramer as a loud mouth who was probably in on all of the deceit the Wall Street types were doing as far as finance!
He is a regular on Mornin Joe, and word has it, MJ did not comment about the Cramer vs. Stewart escapade. Guess the Republican Joe could not stomach what happened to Cramer.

I read yesterday that CNBC's

debbiedoesnothing — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:06:27 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

I read yesterday that CNBC's ratings have been up this week, as a direct result of all the attention this story has been getting. I don't know about Cramer's own ratings but I bet they're up too.

Back in October, in a TPM

IClaudia — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:08:04 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

Back in October, in a TPM thread that was prompted by some very good reporting and interviewing by Katie Couric and Campbell Brown, among others, an award was proposed to recognize contributions from the media. It aimed to support reporting that seemed to really get it right.

The idea drifted off after that -- no more excellent reporting by anyone, MSM or otherwise, perhaps? Whatever.

I propose we revive the award and grant it to Jon Stewart, the newest recipient . . . TA DA . . . of the TPM Eddie. (Named, of course, after, the great Edward R.)

Go Comedy Central! I am convinced Mr. Murrow would be pleased.

What drove me crazy about

Phoebe Fay — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:02:56 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

What drove me crazy about Cramer in that interview was that he kept saying, "these CEOs lied to me" and acting shocked.

Is he *really* that naive? Is he surprised when used car salesmen lie, too? Did he think he was so special that these sociopaths wouldn't lie to him like they lied to others? Or did he just think accepting their lies would be enough to cover his ass.

CEOs are trying to sell something - the value of their stock. Whenever somebody's trying to sell me something, I try to get some independent information. Trust but verify, if you will. For what it's worth, I learned that concept back in the journalism school back in the dark ages.

Quite so!

oleeb — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:54:43 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

Quite so!

Excellent observation!

oleeb — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:36:29 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

Excellent observation!

"Stewart now has now been

JEP07 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:34:51 +0000

In reply to Stewart's Triumph: What it says About "Journalism" and Government

"Stewart now has now been elevated almost to the level of folk hero"

And considering that it took snarky comedy to get him into a place where he could have the influence he currently wields, it just proves how much of a stranglehold the MSM has had on the news for a long, long time.

No snark or crude "he sure nailed Cramer" double entendre intended, it took a back door to the stage to get the truth out to the viewing public, because of this media blackout of the REAL news.