“JON STEWART EVISCERATES JIM CRAMER AND CNBC” is the banner headline currently leading The Huffington Post’s homepage. Now: the interview was much-anticipated and water-cooler-friendly, yeah, and tapped into a simmering populist rage about the economy that few members of the media are able to articulate without seeming to pander to their audiences, sure…but, still: sheesh. The lead story? On the outlet that so many have dubbed The Newspaper of the Future?
To paraphrase a line I heard recently: I understand you want to make journalism entertaining…but, still, it’s not a game.
maybe it didn't deserve the banner headline at Huffington Post, but it was really kind of amazing. Stewart was questioning the whole orientation of financial news and who CNBC should be reporting for, citizens or investors. Can we get a little conversation on the issues Stewart raised. While hosting a satire show, he seems to have so much respect for journalism's possibilities and the value and importance of real news, committed reporting, objective methods, etc.
#1 Posted by Eileen, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 12:42 PM
I agree, Eileen: the interview was pretty amazing. And bizarre. (And, come to think of it, Bizarre-O.) I'd add that Stewart, last night -- and in many previous cases, as well -- was engaging in a strain of accountability journalism that we need to see much, much more among, you know, "real" journalists. But: while the show was great fodder for conversation, as you said...given everything else that's going on in the world, I don't see it as fodder for (the digital equivalent of) page one.
#2 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 01:06 PM
Are you serious?
Jon Stewart's interview was merely "water-cooler-friendly," good for blah blah populist blah blah rage blah blah plus, yeah, other inspidities??
Who's the one not really taking journalism seriously?
Consider one point of comparison: James Fallows who calls the guy the new Edward R. Murrow.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/its_true_jon_stewart_has_becom.php
And just today, CJR published a terrific piece about the Maddow and her brand of journalism of the absurd, no doubt largely inspired by Stewart.
http://www.cjr.org/essay/the_sarcastic_times.php
Btw, I believe Alissa Quart overstates the fundamental difference between Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow's approaches to the news.
#3 Posted by Josh Young, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 01:13 PM
Josh: See above.
#4 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 01:29 PM
You've got two options by my lights, Megan. You either (1) stick to your original words and tone, in which case my comment above remains applicable, or you (2) qualify them and emend the seriously flippant language you used originally, as you seem to do in your comment above, in which case my comment would involve thanks for an amazingly small-bore critique of headline arrangement.
The whole point of Jon Stewart's approach to the news is that he's found a brilliantly trenchant but funny method of approaching the world's affairs. I don't watch him, but for very many others, Jon Stewart makes the grimmest matters palatable. People trust his news judgment deeply, and they should. It certainly is not a game.
PS. I'm sorry if my hot-and-botheredness seems rude. I wish I had the time to moderate my pitch, but writing is not my job.
#5 Posted by Josh Young, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 01:49 PM
There are two separate things at issue here, Josh: the interview itself, and the HuffPost's decision to place it as "front-page" news. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you're conflating them. I have no issue with the interview itself--as I said in my comment to Eileen, I thought it was good, and admirable, etc.--BUT I don't think it deserved the play the HuffPo gave it. (Particularly with the "Stewart Eviscerates Cramer" headline...which doesn't get to the broader, meta-journalism stuff you're suggesting, Josh, but to a kind of petty schadenfreude). If the lead story is what an outlet's editors have decided is the #1 thing its readers need to know about what's going on in the world at a given moment...for me, as a news consumer, that's not the Cramer interview.
If you disagree, though, that's cool: obviously, there's a lot to say about the Stewart-as-journalist meme...no argument there.
And if the banner-headline objection I've described is, to you, "an amazingly small-bore critique"...hey, fair enough. I wish I had time to write more on this, but I have to hop on a train. (I'm rushed, but writing is my job...so if I've been rude in this comment, I hope that means I'm at least half-justified...!)
#6 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 02:17 PM
I would say this interview deserves the front page because it brings a whole new player into the Depression 2.0 stories - the role that journalists at a major network (probably more than one network) have played in creating and abetting 'irrational exuberance'.
And while it seems silly that a comedian has to lecture Jim Cramer on what real journalism is, that fact that somebody with a large audience has indicted a major network as collaborators is very newsworthy.
#7 Posted by Scot Boyd, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 04:31 PM
I think you're sort of missing the point though of the HuffPost.
It's meant to be the "left leaning" online newspaper of the future, which explains the prominence vis-a-vis Drudge's placement in the middle of his page. Also, when the President's Press Secretary takes a question on it from a journalist referring to it as "serious journalism," one has to take note.
HuffPost and DailyKos tend to have the same trend with respect to trying to drive the story. I think you need to keep in mind that HuffPost isn't just trying to tell the story as the front page of a "regular" newspaper does, but they're trying to make the news move to them.
This has the effect of doing so because they're out ahead of everyone on it. In fact, NYTimes followed it within a few hours by putting a big picture of Cramer-Stewart at the front and center of the website's main page for a few hours.
#8 Posted by Vishal Patel, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 06:59 PM