The Editorial (pasted below) from tomorrow's London Observer is quite at odds with the reaction of the American media to Mr. Stewart's program. The reactions of the rporters on the Friday PBS News Hour as well as Howard Kurtz's insipid column in the Washington Post are rather typical it appears. The media line is that they did run stories but no one paid attention. Little Howie alleges that the Post did report on the growing scandal. It is true that he can point to a few stories here and there, BUT if the Post had put half the effort into the development of the governmental actions which led to the crash it put into Watergate (and taken half the heat Ms. Graham did then), then we may not be in the fix we are in. The failure of regulators to regulate was literally in the Post's back yard and they did not see it. There was a massive failure by the media to fulfill the public trust they keep bleating about. They did nothing to fulfill the trust placed in them by the adotpion of the First Amendment two hundred years ago. In the 1920's and early 1930's there were real journalists who were exposing the corruption which led to the Great Depression. They were also exposing the efforts of the reactionaries to preserve their privilege and attempt to derail the reforms of FDR. Howie and his journalistic paramours should spend less time in The Palm and more time digging into the truth.
Satire's power
There are many checks and balances in US democracy. But they failed to halt a collective financial mania resulting in economic catastrophe. Oops!
One of the checks that failed was the financial media, which inflated the bubble that it should in all conscience have pricked. That charge was put last week with devastating effect by US TV satirist Jon Stewart to Jim Cramer, host of popular personal finance show Mad Money. Cramer was routed. Stewart demolished him with the tenacity of Paxman and the ruthless satirical edge of ... who? There is no British equivalent. That is a shame. The checks and balances that failed America failed here, too, and when that happens good satire becomes more than comedy - it is a safety net for democracy.
Tucker Carlson was ranting about Jon today on CNN. He called him a partisan hack, and said he isn't even funny. He was going on and on, and the host played the clip of Jon when he came on Crossfire (they didn't show the part where Jon called Tucker a "dick"). In case you guys don't remember, that was pretty much the end of Crossfire, and began Tucker's descent into oblivion.
You don't see that happen every day, and I thought it was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.
An aside: They were talking about the criticism of Michelle Obama wearing sleeveless dresses and a woman (whose name I can't recall) remarked that it was the first time she had ever heard of conservatives being in favor of ARMS CONTROL!
They went on to talk about Michelle's decision to have healthier food in the White House. Republicans respond: Well, Laura Bush did that too, but she wasn't so public about it!
Tucker then chimed in (his face is bloating way up, BTW) that he didn't want the White House telling him what to eat -- what a doofus! And he gets invited on because...?
March 15, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many cable shows has Tucker lost?
March 15, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, the media didn't like Stewart going on Crossfire and ripping them a new one, nor did those complicit dolts find Colbert's incomparable performance at the White House Correspondent's Dinner funny. It is a delicious irony that the one thing that the media finds most galling is if they are held accountable to any standard of responsibility at all.
I say, round em up and hang every one of them varmints!
March 15, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is something, when the Brits wish they had a satirist to match one of ours. I wonder if that has ever happened before.
March 15, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great!!! What does London think? And you come up with it. Great post.
Oh and when London calls you a great satirist, that removes the snark. Do you not think?
March 15, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Similar thoughts at The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/15/usa-tv-jon-stewart-economy
Especially this, but read the whole thing for wonderful commentary:
March 15, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Observer is the Sunday "edition" of The Guardian. The Scott Trust took over The Observer about 40+ years ago when it was in severe financial difficulty. Both papers have separate news staffs but an identical philosophical view point--left of center in UK terms--very left of center in US terms. [Some 100+ years ago, the Scott family put The Guardian ownership into what in US terms is a nonprofit coroporation with sufficient funds to get it going and to maintain an independent, left of center media voice. The Scott Trust was a major financial backer, and part owner, of the Mail and Guardian in South Africa which was established in the mid 1980's, or there about, to provide a progessive media opposition to apartheid. The authorities shut it down from time to time but the backing of the Scott Trust kept it going as well as causing the authorities to be reluctant to close it permanently. The Mail and Guardian was put online very early and was a factor in speeding the end of apartheid. The Mail and Guradian has been spun off, but it is still a vigorous progessive voice and pain in the backside of the current government. It is a definite factor in maintaining South African democracy.] Sorry to ramble.
March 15, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info, David! Much appreciated. So we were looking at the same site, I guess.
March 15, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, same site. You linked to the news article; I pasted in the Editorial.
March 15, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great link. thanks!
March 15, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink