Do journalists like being shown up by a comedy show?
October 31, 2009 11:33 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Jon Stewart's annihilation this week of the bogus Fox News talking point about it separates news from opinion, represented the umpteenth example of how Comedy Central does a better job reporting on the press than do supposedly serious journalists.
Stewart's program did what virtually no other mainstream media outlet or elite media pundit has been willing to do since the dispute with the White House began, and that is shine a spotlight on what Fox News actually produces. It's a no-brainer, right? The White House had made very specific allegations about the shoddy type of partisan and false programming Fox News airs, so it would seem logical while covering the controversy that journalists actually examined those allegations in detail, right?
Not among Beltway journalists it's not.
For weeks, pundits only wanted to chatter about how the White House and how its decision to fact-check blatantly bogus Fox News 'reporting' was just an awful move. It was petty and thin-skinned and short-sighted and uncivil. "Absolutely crazy."
Everyone agreed that it was the Obama administration's behavior that was waaaaay out of bounds. Fox News'? Pundits and reporters didn't much care. And most of them pretended not to understand why the White House was so upset. What was so bad about Fox news, journalists scratched their heads, as they pretended that Media Matters hadn't laid out that case ad nauseam for weeks.
But then Stewart came along and did what nobody else on on the mainstream stage was willing to do. And once again, it's a comedian who shamed the press for not even thinking about doing it job.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
You bet they does.
And to follow up on the substance of your post, I'd say journalists like having a paying job. These are millionaires (or wannabee millionaires) who are paid by billionaires.
You can be incredibly wrong, forever (take Bill Kristol...please!), and you will still have a job in the media as long as you're wrong in the service of endless war and other endeavors friendly to big corporate profits.
Make the mistake of being RIGHT (as in correct) about something like the war on and occupation of Iraq?
Bye bye.
~
Instead, they look the other way and give FOX endless passes, but then go after the very people (i.e. the White House) for doing the job they should have doing all along?
What good are they as critics of the media if this is the way they operate?
I'm totally with you on this question. The only answer given so far is that they're total corporate whores: if that's the truth, it's extremely depressing.
Stewart and the media critic for the LA Times seem to be the only two who have not bought into the "circle the wagons" mentality.
As was advised during the Watergate reporting and should be carved in stone in somewhere in D.C., "follow the money."
Bye bye.
Richard Cohen of WaPo said it best: "You were wrong to be right; we were right to be wrong."
If a pundit still has a job after that, it's clear that his employers have sold out their calling, and their country.
There are many "news" stories that are driven by their own commentary. How many stories have relied on unnamed sources and outright lies? The line between "regular" news and the news commentary parts of these cable shows is blurry at best. Fox has just pushed the boundaries, but is not doing anything that is fundamentally different than ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc.
Mainstream journalists don't want to start pointing fingers at FOX because they are doing the same thing (to a lesser degree).
I think you could make your argument clearer if you provided some examples.