When did being entertaining become an insult?
Michael Steele was forced last week to apologize for calling Rush Limbaugh an entertainer, after Steele made that comment on an entertainment-news program. Keith Olbermann, who regularly features Limbaugh as one of his "worst persons in the world," has long referred to him derogatorily as "Comedian Rush Limbaugh." And now we have Jim Cramer defending himself against an attack from "The Daily Show" by reminding everyone that Jon Stewart is just a comedian.
Fine: Limbaugh probably does strive to entertain his audience, as do Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann -- otherwise they'd all just have news desks and straight-up reports with minimal graphics, and certainly no segments declaring people best or worst. Jon Stewart has emphasized many, many times that the ultimate goal of "The Daily Show" is to entertain. So it's certainly fair to call them entertainers.
What's not fair is using the term as an insult, or as a way of implying that what they're saying is less than true. Making news and political commentary entertaining is not the same as lying.
Now, in Limbaugh's case, I certainly see many ways to argue that the man's information is poor, his research non-existent, his spin overwhelming, his attention to detail shoddy, and his world view terribly flawed. None of that, however, relates directly to the presentation of his case. Presentation -- whether through an informative discussion or a blast of angry ranting on the radio -- doesn't change the substance of the argument. Just because they make their commentary fun doesn't make their commentary untrue.
Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh both make their money entertaining people by commenting on current events and politics. To do this, they're both well-versed in what's happening in Washington and how things work there, and they both have staffs who are pretty good at tracking down specific instances to back up whatever case the boss wants to make that day. People who attack either one as "just an entertainer" assume that their audience listens only to be entertained. People who support either one assume that at least part of their audience listens in order to gain information.
Then there are those of us in the middle, who say, yes, they are entertainers, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong -- or at least it's not the reason they're wrong. Let's take the most recent example. Here's Stewart's Monday night piece about Cramer and CNBC:
Here's Jim Cramer on "The Today Show" this morning, via Salon's War Room:
Vieira then ran the "Daily Show" clip and asked Cramer if he made a mistake, to which he responded, "Did I make a mistake? OK, well, first of all, any time you've recommended a stock and it goes down, you've made a mistake. Here's a shocker: Almost every stock is down. Any stock you recommended is bad... This is a terrible market, which is why I told people to sell everything. But you think he's going to run that tape? No, 'cause he's got a comedy show."
Again, true, Jon Stewart does have a comedy show. But that doesn't mean he's making things up. In fact, if Stewart's only goal were to make people laugh, he could find much, much cheaper jokes than this. For Stewart and staff to compile this clip-fest of Cramer takes time, and for Stewart to go on air and set up the clip also takes time. Beyond that, it demands audience attention. To attack Cramer is comedically expensive, because there's a fair amount of Stewart's usual audience who won't know who the guy is, and they all have to be let in on the joke just to get there. It's far easier for Stewart to just write a quick, cheap piece making fun of, I don't know, did penguins do something funny yesterday?, without even trying to set up the joke with information; it's far cheaper to be solely an entertainer than to bridge the gap between information and comedy as Stewart does.
"The Daily Show" is allowed to make stuff up, but in this case (and many others), they haven't. But it's more comfortable for someone like Jim Cramer to dismiss Stewart out of hand as an "entertainer," and therefore a liar, than to accept that his commentary is based on truth, and that his report is entertaining because the truth is often funnier than fiction.
Then again, maybe I'm having a hard time taking a dismissal of Jon Stewart's takedown as merely entertainment from a guy who seems to have made his career out of being the most outrageous thing on CNBC, which could be renamed the Circus National Broadcasting Channel without any danger of false advertising.
Have to wrap this up, now: "The Daily Show" is on.

Salon.com
Comments
My daughter (19) gets most if not all of her news from "The Daily Show" and "The Onion". Apparently, that quest for smart and funny runs in the family.
Great post as always.
I guess entertainment got a bad name back when folks used to make a family outing to the Coliseum to laugh and clap as the Christians were thrown to the lions. Who knew Rush Bimbo would be its direct descendent...
If I were Jim Cramer, I’d be running scared, too. Didn’t Jon Stewart’s punishing visit to that horrible Tucker Carlson ‘Crossfire’ CNN thingus basically get the show cancelled?
Comedian or no, Jon Stewart seems to hit the pulse point 9 times out of 10.
It is painful for liberals to admit, that we can't really say Jon Stewart is so much more than an entertainer, while dismissing Rush as same. It's either OK to be an entertainer who strives for relevance, or it's not. Ideology actually doesn't have much to do with it.
Stewart makes the news funny and therefore attractive and that's
a good way for the younger set to get involved.
I just wish I could stand him. He seems so snide. I can't take
Cramer either. Can't take his loud and aggressive demeanor,
although I think he, like Stewart, are basically fine and decent
people beyond their tv personas.
Funny--I am on Michael Steele's email list (McPalin gave it to him) and he just called Al Franken a comedian.
They may gather facts but it's the way they stgring them together for entertainment that is all wrong. Liberal or conservative.
Trying to hide the truth or make excuses seldom works.
I watch Stewart regularly. I have seen him utter some things that were flat out wrong to the applause of his audience. Being right of center it can irk me from time to time, but I appreciate his wit.
Rush does similar things from the right, although I do not find him funny so I do not watch him. Franken and Garofalo do it from the left.
Cramer's biggest mistake was expecting "fair and balanced" treatment from a show that makes no bones about being a comedy show. Stewart has, indeed, defended himself from attacks with just such a palms up, shoulder shrugging defense. I believe it was a hissy fit with Tucker Carlson, he of the bow tie who has fallen off the map, where I recall Stewart doing this.
In short, it can't be both ways. If Stewart is going to diminish and duck criticisms of his work when journalistically called into question as being "just a comedy show," then it is also fair for those attacked to dismiss it as well as being "just a comedy show."
Cramer was foolish to go on. Only folks dumber are the congresscritters agreeing to be interviewed by Stephen Colbert. Those things are hilarious.
we've been mocking cramer since last night ...
"co-meeeeeeeee-dian" ...
great post Saturn!
And, MJ Gott, why do you assume that Rush's critics are ignorant? You said you watch Rachel Maddow regularly, and yet you criticize her?
The point of satire is to reveal the ridiculous and mock the absurd in society, and Stewart does this quite fairly and brilliantly. I don't think the Daily Show intends to represent one political view point over another as much as point out the absurdity of the nature of news media today. That's the irony isn't it, that "serious" political shows can be more absurd and comedic than a comedy show that tries to be funny and absurd. The Daily Show does poke fun at both left and right leaning media, though admittedly more often the right, but that does beg the question: is that indicative of how much more absurd the heavily right leaning media is?
With that said, if you rely only on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report for your news, then you're in trouble. I rely on them to point out some of the absurd things I read in the news, and to make me laugh. And they do a pretty fantastic job at both.
Side Note: Colbert's Doom Bunker spin-off of Glen Beck's War Room is one of the funniest bits he has ever done. It is only slightly more absurd than Beck's War Room.
He imparts plenty of fact, broken down and well presented.
Maybe it's the pompous attitude put on by the so-called "serious journalists" that has called for some lightening up. This is in light of the fact that we've caught them cheating and failing to give us the facts that we decided we need to know over the past eight years.
Actually, it was the traveling jesters and entertainers who were essential in spreading news from place to place, wasn't it?
hi melinda. i didn't say rush'e critics were ignorant. what i was saying was i think you get a fair amount of people, almost a mob mentality that agree or disagree depending on what they think is right. depending on what you watch you can reinforce that opinion even though in reality it may be totally false. i was using rachel maddow as an example of how the market going up can be twisted into something bad. i suppose i could have used bill o'reilly, or sean hannity, and i promise i will next time. it's funny when 98% of the people operating motor vehicles don't have any idea of who the vice president is its amazing how much what one watches influences what they believe(i made the 98% up it's probably higher).
RATED
All TV news is entertainment in some form or another. The graphics, side stories, celebs, and outrageous claims are all meant to draw in viewers, keep them interested and leave them fulfilled.
24 hour news appeals to our voyeur nature because most of what we learn or know has little impact on our lives. Just knowing something does not mean you can do anything about it or more important will do anything about it once we know.
PS - Jon Stewart has the balls to address the cable bloviators and the self-control to keep his ego in check; this already makes his commentary more trustworthy than Jim Cramer's could ever be...
I would say not really to entertain but to keep them in a continual state of anger and outrage, as do many other right-wing radio hosts. What he does is to keep his followers perpetually pissed-off at the "liberals." That's his whole shtick, his reason for existence, and he makes a good living doing that. Inasmuch as promoting hatred of liberals is entertaining, he's an entertainer, though I think it is more accurate to call him a demagogue.
I just found it interesting that you said, "with all the rush bashing i venture to say the majority of people that can't stand him probably never heard him or his show." You then went on to say that while you disagree with Maddow and find her annoying, you are a regular watcher. Why would you assume that the Rush critics don't listen to his show or are not regular listeners?
And you didn't say 'ignorant', I did.. .that's correct. However, ignorant would properly describe a person without information garnered, in this case, from the experience of listening or watching.
And FYI- I disagree with your take on Rush haters too. I think some if not a lot of his listeners can't stand him, they just listen for the shock value. (Like a lot of Howard Stern listeners)
two thoughts (echoing others):
1. Jon Stewart is funny and brilliant, IMHO. His satire works because it IS grounded in truth and relevance. I really can't comment on Rush Limbaugh b/c I don't listen to him, but I've never heard him called either brilliant or funny, even by his "supporters," so I'm not sure what the entertainment value is, other than the shock value and Joe the Plumber-ness of his ideas.
2. What is more concerning to me is the inverse of your argument. Not only the Jim Cramers of the world, but also the politicians (Cantor, Vitter, Blogoyevich, Schumer come to mind) who see their mission as to "entertain" the populace, sell a story, or craft an image rather than do their jobs. I know - all politicians need to have an image and POV, but there are some that seem totally dedicated to that end rather than thinking/learning/informing.
In Ancient Greece the citizens were required to attend theatre so they could be informed. This included seeing tragedies and comedies.
I just wonder if the players on stage were amongst the most highly compensated individuals in their communities, as are all those named in this fine piece. Perhaps the way to make sense of all this is to require everyone who is providing the news in any fashion to disclose before each broadcast how much they are being paid and who is paying them.
That being said, Jon Stewart is a riot.
Rush Limbaugh is good at what he does, but I could have said the same thing about Hitler. When you are good at pandering to the fears of a people it does not make you good.
perhaps i should have seperated the rush and rachel comments. i was just using rachel as a show that to me has an overt twist. i think the really interesting part of these shows is when you watch a live event like a presidential address or a debate.do you trust your own eyes and ears, or do you believe what some commentator just told you you saw. but you got me thinking...i either have to turn the tv off, or stick to tvland. andy griffith i can understand.
It’s easy to understand the idea that something based solely on entertainment value would not necessarily be a valid source of “information”. But you point out very well that in some cases, some of these programs are NOT based SOLELY on entertainment value; there is a healthy mixture of entertainment and information.
The problem is that too many mainstream news media are sadly lacking in real information, and they plump up their presentation with “entertainment”. In this sense, I think Jon Stewart delivers a sort of double-whammy attack; he makes fun of his subjects such as Cramer, AND the mainstream media reporting, as parodist of their “entertainment”.
RATED
In the name of full disclosure, you're not a flak for Jon Stewart are you? Just kidding--I wouldn't care if you were. Funny, funny, rated, rated.
Quickly, just to catch a few points that haven't already been hit by other wise commenters, the only goal that I think Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh share is one of increased audience numbers, and I think they both use the same tactic -- being entertaining, where entertainment is loosely defined enough to include both the anger that Limbaugh incites and the, let's face it, despair that I often feel after laughing at Stewart.
And nope, I promise, I'm not paid by Jon Stewart! Heh. That's one I've never been asked.