I love Jon Stewart as much as the next cable-news junkie blog-a-holic. I re-watch and even embed clips of his show regularly; I'm prone to sending out links to his opening segment; and when I'm next in New York, I really hope to attend a taping. I am, in other words, a big fan. But this is a little silly:
Forty-four percent of respondents to a recent Time magazine online poll called Jon Stewart America's most trusted newscaster, when put up against Katie Couric (7), Charlie Gibson (19), and Brian Williams (29). All the green states went for Stewart in the above map. It is, thank goodness, an unscientific poll, so maybe those numbers don't accurately represent a sample of informed news-watchers in America.
Before anyone starts sending me "but but but!" hate mail, I'll clarify. I'm happy with "The Daily Show" being a source, even the main source, of news for many people, because I assume that nearly everyone who claims it's their main source would otherwise get news from nowhere, or from Yahoo! headlines or Facebook updates. What's annoying is that, in seeking a successor to Walter Cronkite, Time included Jon Stewart in the question at all.
Let me point out the elephant in the room: Jon Stewart isn't a newscaster. You know who'd be the first to tell you that? Jon Stewart. While he does broadcast stories that are often more critical -- and thus, more accurate -- than what many other stations broadcast, his goal is not the same as a standard news program. Jon Stewart succeeds if you laugh; Katie Couric succeeds if you know something you didn't know when you turned on the TV. This goal of information is inherent in identifying yourself as a journalist or newscaster; it is part of the legacy of Walter Cronkite.
Of course, all four of these anchors are seeking the same thing: ratings. They want you to tune in not just tonight, but tomorrow night and every night for the rest of your TV-watching life. (Walter Cronkite wanted that, too). As such, there's more entertainment and titilation being mixed into news all the time.
I think that's wrong-headed. Walter Cronkite dominates our memories as a newscaster because he was trusted. That's why people tuned in night after night -- they trusted Cronkite to tell them how it was. None of these four anchors does that effectively. Stewart has a great excuse: He's not trying to be the most trusted name in news, just the most reliable name in topical comedy. The others are chasing Cronkite's legacy, but they're often running in precisely the wrong direction.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
But I'm also wishing for a trusted, literate, informed, unbiased voice. I really believe there would be a market for tabloid-free news (but maybe it would just be me watching!).
Is he the must trusted man in the world? No, but he is about the only one with his head out of his___ ! (I’m sure everyone can fill in that blank)
Thanks for bring this Poll to our attention. At least it will get everyone thinking about the news media and their role in today’s culture or the lack of them having a role.
- rated
And no, he's not a newscaster by the traditional definition of the word. On the other hand, who really is? It feels like traditional journalism has failed us, in terms of their responsibility to report the news free of bias and agenda, that "trust" in this case means "willingness to be critical, but fair-minded" and you can't really deny that Stewart fits that definition as well as any news source on TV right now.
1. he is one of very few sources who even bothers to debunk the talking points
2. he does not play favorites - he takes shots across the board at people in all political parties
3. he backs up his humor with facts, including calling folks on the carpet for contradicting previous statements
Compare him, for example, to Meet the Press & David Gregory's having politicos over for tea to spout their propaganda, rather than ask tough questions.
I do happen to think his monologues are much tougher than his interviews, though.
Too bad the "Crossfire" mentality lives on in every major newscast that treats a story by giving equal, uncritical say to two advocates from opposite political poles duking it out. That's not journalism, it's lazy, cheap titilation, and Stewart nailed it on Crossfire. Too bad he isn't quite powerful enough to put all the major "news" broadcasts off the air or get them to clean up their acts.
Stewart really is a better journalist than the network "teleprompter monkeys" (as Stewart characterized Brian Williams, when he was a guest on The Daily Show the other day).
Rated
Though I wonder about this word "trust" -- I don't trust any news readers, I don't know any of them! How do I know what they're reading off the teleprompter is the truth? Because they sound convincing, I'm supposed to trust them? Reminds me of the old saying: The secret to success is sincerity -- once you can fake that, you've got it made.
People, don't trust any newsreader -- take in what they say, think about it, see if it corroborates with information you've received from other sources, and then make up your mind yourself.
I deeply admire what Stewart is doing. He is in essence a conscience with a sense of humor. I am dismayed at why a simple cross referencing of past and present opinions has not caught up with the major news outlets. After all, it IS a very objective tool if one interested in the truth instead of cheap sensationalism and biased opinions which seem to fill 24/7 news channels.
Stewart is an entertainer, yet I'd trust him more than any of those other 'news anchors' any day.
The way I see it,
Stewart is the new Twain
And Colbert is our Voltaire
That's something Katie, Brian and Charlie will never do. So why are _they_ on the list?
It's not that he's not trustworthy; it's that he's not a newscaster. He's a satire of a newscaster, and he makes no bones about it.
Apples and oranges, people.
Seriously. These poll results, unscientific or not, are utterly embarrassing to Journalism as practiced on television. And it really cuts to the core of the whole "trust" issue: people trust a comedian to give them the straight dope more than the people actually entrusted (as it were) to give them the straight dope.
Jon Stewart is the smartest court jester in history. Court jesters have always gotten more news out than the town criers who, increasingly, are also the village idiots.
Too bad... they mostly don't.
I agree with those saying that you have to watch the news for Jon Stewart to be funny. He is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down.
It is disconcerting to say the very least.
::Scratching my head::
Trust a newscaster? It's not like they'll be coming over to watch my children, pets, or house immediately after the broadcast.
I like juicy gossip and scandal as much as the next person. But there are already lots of places I can go to get that information. And gossip and scandal are not "news". Or, if they are, then we are all in real trouble.
Right now here is what is news:
1. How many US soldiers and Iraqi citizens were killed today, how and why and what steps are being taken to make sure it doesn't happen tomorrow?
2. An explanation of all of the players at the health care debate table, what their interests in the subject are and what are the actual hurdles that still must be crossed for reform to pass or not pass?
3. What, exactly is the US plan for Pakistan and Afghanistan? Certainly not all the details but I would like to hear what is actually happening and what real experts think will happen and a discussion of the options open to the US and the rest of the world.
4. How many people protested today in Iran? What did the world do to support them? What are the real issues the Iranians are fighting for, not what the US wants their agenda to be.
5. If the CIA has behaved illegally and it sounds as though they have, what did they do that crossed the line to illegality and then what is going to be done about it and when.
6. How was TARP money spent today? By whom and for what?
7. Evidence of how the stimulus money is being used, on what specific projects, creating x number of jobs?
8. Why is a house in Washington DC that supposedly offers spiritual guidance so intertwined in our system of government and what is being done to stop it.
9. A clear and concise outline of how the Climate Control bill will affect my world, my country, my community and me.
The fact that Sanford and Ensign can't keep it in their pants, that Sanford is operating in some alternate reality and Ensign is such a baby his mom and dad have to pay off his girlfriend is titillating in the extreme, but not news. The fact that Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Frank McCourt and even Walter Cronkite have died is sad & definitely worth memorializing, but not news.
So if I am not going to get real news from my newscaster, why listen to a real newscaster, when the fake one is more educational and more entertaining?
Here's some actual poll numbers (which may not be prefect, but at least they are done with some rigor) from Rasmussen: From March 09, Stewart has a 36% favorable rating, and 42% of Americans don't know him well enough to have an opinion. Colbert and Miller(hmmm) have similar numbers. They just did a Cronkite-inspired news anchor poll too. The 3 network anchors each have favorables between 47% and 50%.
So it's a safe bet that Jon is not the most trusted newsman in America.
(I used the search function at rasmussenreports.com to find these.)
His show is the most honest and most informative. Other journalists, compared to Jon Stewart, with few exceptions, are cowards and cunts.
Jon Stewart does real news; others lie and spin.
Great post.
They are both mammals, though. And both not full of shit, which is, I suppose, what people were getting at in that poll.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Great, great discussion. Thank you all for your comments and thoughts and, really, time.
The current crisis in news isn't something new, it's as old as America itself. In many ways Ben Franklin was the US's first media magnate who helped the propaganda war for the Contintal Congress. He was also able to write and disseminate his own history that has been passed onto us to this day.
Will Rogers was in part a response pre-Great Depression. Like John Stewart he wasn't based in Washington DC. The cool thing about Stewart is that he works for a comedy channel which makes him a little of an outsider.
What Stewart represents is a recurring trend in the news business. When people pay attention to Stewart they are, in effect, thumbing their noses at the unholy government big-business propaganda machine.
But, I do consider him a commentator, even if he uses comedy to make his point. A journalist reports a story, but hardly any of the media talking heads do that any more -- they spin; they distort; they have their political talking points and stick to the script. He ridicules them because, let's face it, they're ridiculous. I don't agree that he is the heir to Walter Cronkite, but the news industry today isn't the news industry that existed in Cronkite's day. I do believe, however, that Jon Stewart critiques fairly and accurately, in a way that practically no mainstream commentators are able to match today.
That I am actually considered a news person says more about the state of journalism today, than it does about what I do.
Sadly though, given the other choices listed, Stewart DOES seem to be the most trusted newscaster. Given that Brian Williams is one of the main people ignoring the military analyst scandal, and Charlie Gibson's ABC is the network that disseminated the government disinformation on the anthrax attacks and still refuses to disclose who fed them that patently false information, it's not like Stewart is up against much trustworthiness here. How hard is it to be more trustworthy than a guy who refuses to acknowledge the compromising position he was in from the military analyst scandal, or a guy who says it's not a journalist's job to debate the people he covers?
I think you can learn more from Stewart than a lot of the hot air spewing serious news anchors.
So does Indiana University.
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?source=refresh
More truth in that one segment than you find on any 10 network news broadcasts.
Of course it really isn't a fair question, but, as Undertow wrote, they (Stewart and Colbert) are the "most trusted names in social critique." On television, I would say so, hands down. They ask the best questions, too.