Jay Rosen comments on Rachel Maddow's interview with Jon Stewart

[mjchmiel]

it was an incomprehensible interview and it permanently affected the way I interpret stewart ever since.

[Samshile]

They need to get with Michelle Malkin and leave GE at the door.

[Samshile]

JOn Stewart, Maher and Maddow are the least qualifed to take a stand. They make thier money with fake arguments or little tiny snotty points of view. They sell advertisement only for snarkey adults. MSNBS is like watching WWF. I dont see an opposite at Fox. Different product. This dood thinks we need a professional referee to uphold the truth. The truth starts with my doing my own research and folks turning the TV off on the fakes. Govmet corruption.

[thesurfingviolinist]

Tweeted this already, but just to expand. Lo-fi is the way to go with these vlogs. 1) It will scale (less time, less hassle in production-content gets focus). 2) It works (see @nigahiga, @RayWilliamJohnson, @Fred, @ShaneDawsonTV). 3) It encourages sources to go direct ("If Jay's video looks crappy, then maybe I can do that, too). 4) Undermines the church of the savvy's pretentious use of extravagant production value to insulate themselves from "the masses."

[rheographics]

I know exactly what he was talking about. He was spot on.

[dcoch2000]

Yes, yes! Stewart WAS inarticulate, because he was out of his realm. And debating a PhD on Public Policy probably didn't help. To me he came across as someone trying a little too hard to be an intellectual. And to say that Fox News (Faux News?) isn't partisan was THE funniest moment! The phony news organization owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Roger Ailes (Reagan's Karl Rove), is nothing more than a political extension of the neo-con movement which came to life with the Reagan campaign.

[bucasas]

@dcoch2000 leave america then. it wasnt made for the weak like you.

[cathcnoyes]

I think it would be better to make a podcast of this kind of commentary. Cheers!

[rssytube]

Jon Stewart has an audience just like CNN and Fox. It's impossible to say what he means without determining who the audience is. His audience is not sitting in the studio in front of him. He's way past them.

Jon Stewart once called Harry S. Truman a war criminal. That was the only time - that I know of - when he spoke to his real "audience" openly. When he says "corrupt" he's talking about the system not journalism. He is talking about the country not CNN.

He is echoing his real audience.

[drOffset]

I think what we saw was Jon Steward holding back out of insecurity. While he's very successful and more influential than he's ready to admit at heart he's a stand-up comic who's going at this from the point of view of an observer, a regular guy. And the key to his success is being the observer because you need some perspective from the conflictonator to be able to make commentary on it. I wouldn't use the word 'virtue' for what he's looking for but I think he's on to something.

[sk8bow]

@drOffset

yes, he want's a safe area to perch on. who can blame him? it's a crazy world and why bother dealing with the bs being in the spotlight of seriousness?

in the end, the media isn't exactly a good representation of the u.s. opinion. we would rather stick to common ground than to constantly focus on differing views and to remind us 24/7 of those differences.

why in the world is the media like this? can't it just let us relax and bring us together?

[drOffset]

@sk8bow If you can find a way for mass media to make as much money bringing people together as they do pushing conflict then they might consider it. :)

[sk8bow]

@drOffset

more conflict, more drama, more attention? capitalism is crazy.

[ZS753]

Great comments, thank you for the insight. You might check the Daily show clip from April 1, 2010 "CNN Hires Erick Erickson" - Jon outlines his ideal news organization as a new direction for CNN, generally along the lines you say. It supports your impressions well. Thanks again.

[2openurmind]

Finally, my impression of Jay Rosen talking about Jon Stewart is – why? Johnny Walker has tempered his critique and he really should learn to drive a blended 18 year old Chivas. But to each his own.

[2openurmind]

...who can take Jon Stewart's version of “corrupt” and “corruption” to journalistic reality. Something Stewart himself is incapable of. Maddow is that astute. She is always learning. She is that dangerous. My impression of the critics like Maher and Olbermann is YOU WEREN'T THERE. Take a dose of Matthew 7:3-5. NO, take two doses (which in Maher's case won't work very well anyway.)

[2openurmind]

Impressions. Ok, my impression of Jon Stewart and his Rally4Sanity, articulate or not, Stewart is really on point. Also no one should underestimate the role/weight that Stephen Colbert carried. During the interview, my impression of Rachel Maddow is defensive yet journalistically patient. Smart lady but I'm not so sure she has totally comprehended the Stewart thing at all - yet. I will say this, once Maddow finally does "get it", she is the one pundit (re: TV talking head) who can take Jon...

[ebmedia]

"Everyone is on the field." Yes. Satire isn't at all a place on the sidelines, in the stands, out getting a hot dog during the big game. It's social commentary through humor, and criticism is just as much a part of the big picture as anything else. Jon isn't merely a comedian, he's a fine satirist. He's not riffing on the quality of airline food, he's discussing politics--on national television, sometimes w/ politicians!--and is therefore a political actor. And Rosen -- nice call on the Scotch.

[SpeakeasyLiveNet]

It's our now our responsibility as citizens to research what our politicians are doing. Oh and check out this YouTube video "Geraldo Rivera Runs 9/11 Truth Segment on World Trade Center 7" P.S. One thing Jon was trying to articulate is that Americans need to break away from the parties & follow truth and reality. Yes we are all players.

[SpeakeasyLiveNet]

Made perfect sense to me o.O  I enjoyed it immensely. I thought Stewart was very articulate for a television personality, he said it all. Follow me on twitter to gain more insight>> @speakeasylive

[1977ub]

How much of what we see on the Daily Show is someone else's vision? If Jon Stewart had to fill the time himself, what would he talk about?

[rssytube]

@1977ub All of what Jon Stewart says is someone else's vision. The question is whose. There are occasional hints in his shows like the almost total pass he gave BP for the oil spill while ridiculing Obama for squatting to touch one of the globs. The clues are there but not always obvious.

[drtphd]

Standing up for virtue would entail not coddling a confessed war criminal. Standing up for virtue would not say "well....technically he 'maybe' is but that's a conversation stopper." Virtue means enforcing the law and that included treaties. This country is a signatory to the Geneva conventions and authored the Nuremberg Principles. No peace or closure without justice.

[mamund]

good thoughts.

i am surprised that so few seem to accept the notion that Stewart is _not_ a participant in the media-political process. it is clear he uses his show to comment about the depravity of both left- and right-leaning participants. it's true that he did the same thing at the rally.

It seems a tactic of those he criticizes is for those same people to say to Stewart: "ah, but you are one of us, too!" making _Stewart_ the subject, rather than the media-political process.

[bruiser07]

Based on what Obama has done with his foreign policy, he clearly has also ordered Americans to do things that are against international law (the CIA predator drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen come to mind). Obama likely doesn't investigate Bush because he doesn't want those investigations to uncover lawlessness in his own administration. But if everyone just ignores all the law breaking then society as a whole gets more & more corrupt. I find it odd Stewart can support that with no qualms.

[bruiser07]

One thing you didn't hit on that I think is important is how Stewart isn't too concerned about accountability. The example Rachel and Jon discussed was whether or not George Bush is a war criminal. Stewart agreed that "technically" he may be a war criminal, but Stewart suggested we should put that aside and ignore it (for now) in order to moderate discussion with Bush supporters, ignoring the fact that allows Bush to get away with his crimes & encourages further criminal activity in the future.

[jajasoon]

I really enjoyed these comments, and hope you can write them up for your blog - if no other reason for search engines to find! In the end, you seem to suggest that Stewart is taking an almost Lessig-like stance against corruption, but aimed at the media instead of congress. I wonder if you can fight those two fronts separately?

[jbgerg13]

First! :P