For those who have not seen it, here is the full interview (more than just what was broadcast). Required viewing.
And from the HuffPo we have this spot-on observation:
You see, Stewart's real critique wasn't about Cramer, it was also only marginally about CNBC. Instead, Stewart's real rage comes from the role the modern media has created for itself: the role of cheerleader instead of watchdog, of favoring surface over depth, of respecting authority instead of questioning it.
It's the same critique that some have about the New York Times (and the rest of the media) in the leadup to the war in Iraq; the same critique lobbed every time a TV reporter does a stand up in front of the Apple Store before a product release; the same critique leveled every time a sensational murder steals a headline from a corporate crime: is this really the job we want the fourth estate to be doing?
So here's the million dollar question. When cNBC has aborogated actual reporting for corporate cheerleading and the ones to call them out are a comedy show - is it a bad thing that we are seeing a total upheaval in what existing media companies will continue to exist and in what form?
We had a pretty static system from WWII till the '80s. First cable and then talk radio wrought some changes. But in hindsight these changes were not major. They added a couple of players and diversified the voices we heard a bit. But by and large it was variations on the same old theme. CNN was more similiar to the NY Times than it was different.
But now we are seeing a radical change. The daily newspaper may survive in some mid-sized markets like Boulder, but baring radical effective change, my guess is not only the Post history, but most of the other main papers in Colorado.
And I think we face the same thing with TV News. I think TV News will continue to exist, but it will be celebrities, sports, weather, and some "be afraid" story. But the real news which is a lot more work will not be worth the cost.
But the key issue to remember is that people do want news. The Daily Show interview with Jim Cramer is being watched by a boatload of people. The problem is that people are not getting the reporting they want.
I think one major issue is that over the last 70 years journalism got locked into a "professional" approach that limits what people in the industry are willing to consider.
For example, no "real journalist" would take John Stewart's approach of equal helpings snark and facts. They wouldn't lower themselves to have a public namecalling spat with a news subject.
Yet this is the approach that reaches people. It may be better, it may be worse, but it is clearly what works. And by definition it is one, and just one of many many paradigm changes, that we will see our news presentation go through.
And I think we're going to end up better off. We will look back on what we had as a system that was very good for about 40 years but that then got set in it's ways and no longer evolved. And as Darwin said (or should have said), evolve or die.
The key point is that rather than bemoaning the loss of the old known system, we should be embracing the changes coming our way searching for what works best. Because fighting change is to lose. But those who take best advantage of the change will be our new media powerhouses.
Update 1 - Speaking to a comment on what the new mode will be:
The best single reporter on the war in Iraq & Afghanistan is Michael Yon - supported 100% through donations. One of the best in Washington is TPM - supported 100% by click ads and doing their own original reporting.
Both are free and direct. I think we'll have paid too, both direct and indirect. But I don't think there will be any single model.
Update 2 - Speaking to a comment about the "quality" of the present approach:
I agree.
But first off, the fact that it will be a loss is irrelevant. If it does not make economic sense, it is going away - just like house calls by doctors.
Second, while we have seen a lot of superb reporting, we have also seen even more cases of phonin it in or going with the flow. Bob Woodward is a great example where he doesn't report anything that will threaten his access and holds much of the best for his books.
We are presently harmed as people assume that no stories about potential prolems means no problems. The present system for the MSM totally failed on the run-up to the financial crisis and mostly failed in the run-up to the Iraqi war.
We also have been greatly harmed with the existing journalistic requirement for "balance." What this does is allow one side (or both) to state blatant falsehoods and those are reported as the opposing view. When the public would be much better served by a statement in the article that the opposing viewpoint is a pack of lies.
And the key point is we are not going to see a replacement with a new monolithic system. What we will see instead is a very diverse set of feeds, under a multiple set of economic models, journalistic approach, content providers, etc.
And I think this new system will be much better as it shakes out. It will also be much more decentralized as well as much more diverse in the approaches to reporting.
I'll leave it with this thought, for the past 18 months what would have been a better source of news for the pig picture on our financial health, the MSM with it's many very good & qualified reporters - or a monthly post by Michael Lewis?
Update 3: Seattle may be the first no newspaper town
As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer moves toward printing its last edition, it remains unclear whether its bigger rival, The Seattle Times, is far behind _ and whether this famously literate city could soon find itself without a major daily newspaper.
What's also very interesting in this case is the times is owned by a local family focused on keeping it alive and does not have a bunch of debt. If it doesn't work for them then the model is in a lot of trouble.
