Don't tell me, I already know how much sounds wrong with that statement. I also know that to say it is vaguely populist. Jon Stewart is a comedian who makes his living by making fun of the news on Comedy Central. He makes uses funny faces, sounds, graphics, and props. He grossly exaggerates and takes sound bites out of context. He edits pictures, adds voice-overs to clips, uses ridiculous commentary and occasionally outright lies. And all of this would be condemning if it weren't for the context. It's all in service to bringing attention to what Stewart thinks deserves it, and then making us laugh about it. He does not pretend that he should be taken seriously. The promo for the Stewart-Cramer interview used a sarcastically dramatic voice to say nobody cares, to mock viewers, to blatantly state that this interview was being used for higher ratings and advertising money, and to end in a funny slogan and graphic, which then explodes. Nobody would claim afterwards that Stewart has a reputation of journalistic integrity to uphold.
Well, except me. I'm pinning him down with the accusation that he actually does operate with journalistic integrity. It's always clear whether he's being serious or absurd. Or, occasionally, just pointing to serious yet absurd situations that don't need his help. Stewart maintains a blend of the real and fake, and tends to tilt more towards the fake side. But during the presidential race, ratings and viewership spiked, largely thanks to his unique point-of-view and insight, and long-running commentary. And of course, his sense of humor as applied to the antics and hypocrisy of all the personalities involved.
The next long-term situation he's turned his attention to is the economy. About a week ago, he started raining criticism down on CNBC and Rick Santelli for some controversial comments he made. Santelli cancelled, though, and the media started calling a grudge match. A back-and-forth between CNBC and Stewart began, culminating in an interview last night between Jon Stewart and Mad Money host Jim Cramer.
Stewart prefaced the interview with the disclaimer that he was throwing banana cream pies at CNBC, not necessarily directed at Cramer, who did however get a little metaphorical shmutz on his jacket. He emphasized several times that his criticisms were aimed at CNBC, not specifically Cramer, but he did catch Cramer in clear contradiction with previous statements, which he showed in a clip. To be fair, Stewart used some mild one-liners and cheap shots. But in his defense, the cheap shots consisted solely of clips used as incontrovertible evidence of his points (like the aforementioned), and of mentioning Cramer throwing a plastic cow between his legs and other such bullshit to make the point that Cramer was being irresponsible. He rarely interrupts Cramer, and twice only does so to agree and clarify his own position. When Stewart said, "This is not a fuckin' game" he gave the impression that he meant it, not that he was playing the audience (although he couldn't fully suppress a smile when they applauded). He went out of his way to clarify that he was speaking as a layman, not an expert; to defend some innocent stockbrokers on Wall Street who are getting a bad rap; and to compliment Cramer. Later he mentioned his 75-year-old mother who thought long-term investing was the way to go; Cramer says, sympathetically, "It didn't work...it didn't work." You get the impression at this point that Stewart is serious, and is trying to force the humor when he says "maybe we can remove the financial expert and the 'In Cramer We Trust' and start getting back to the fundamentals on reporting as well, and I can go back to making fart noises and funny faces."
There were also a couple points where he advocated his own point of view. In one, he suggested that they were both selling snake oil, but the Daily show is marketed as such, and CNBC is marketed as vitamin tonic. Here, he specifically points out that he's not telling anybody to rely on him, like CNBC does. Yet, the serious parts of Stewart's commentary are consistently reliable. Another point he makes is that we shouldn't have to rely solely on regulators, but that CNBC and other news organizations should be digging up the truth and shining a spotlight on it. Frequently, his own fake news show is the best place to find hypocrisy, lies, and relevant juxtapositions. And I hate to get repetitive, but Stewart's own hypocrisy, lies, and relevant juxtapositions are overstated, obvious, and funny.
So, yeah, I'm giving Stewart credit for journalistic integrity. He's classy, honest, smart, and unafraid to give his opinion or spark some controversy. And I kinda wish it had been him to run for office instead of Colbert.
