Issue date: 6/19/07 Section: Opinion

Media Credit: Chris Griffin [Click to enlarge]

The Daily Show and broadcast news include all the same parts: a congenial anchor and a staff of correspondents on a flashy set, interviewing big name guests. The difference is one is a parody, while the other is the real deal - but deciphering which is which seems to become harder every day.

Jon Stewart, the host of The Daily Show, is the often pinned in the media as the Walter Cronkite for this generation of younger Americans - who we watch, who we get our news from, who we trust. Though such a contention is somewhat hyperbolic, it is a testament to how the media are failing us.

Stewart reported on his program how Tony Snow made a boldfaced lie in a press conference in saying the firings of several U.S. attorneys had nothing to do with politics. In a split screen, one box had Snow in a March 15 press conference saying, "It's pretty clear that these things are based on performance and not on some sort of attempt to do political retribution."

They played the tape from last Wednesday's briefing. A reporter asked if the firings were based on performance, not politics, as he had said. His response: "No…we have never said that."

What's more troubling than blatant mistruths coming from the White House is learning of them from a comedy show - because, besides Stewart, only a Washington Post columnist and a few others outside the mainstream media reported this.

In the same episode, Stewart interviewed actress, humanitarian, and the female half of the "Brangelina" tabloid craze, Angelina Jolie. Comparing Stewart's interview with Ann Curry's on The Today Show was like night and day. The comedian's, sadly, was the brighter of the two.

In between the punch lines and sophomoric cracks, Stewart asked Jolie about the rumor of her request that journalists sign a contract stating they wouldn't ask any questions about her personal relationship with the other "Brangelina" half, Brad Pitt, and her supposed request that the Fox News Channel not be allowed at the premiere of her new movie.

Meanwhile, Curry looked like a schoolgirl wanting to become Jolie's best friend. She not only avoided any tough questions, her queries were so indulging of the superstar I thought her next question would be, "How are you so awesome?"

Even worse, valuable time on the public airwaves was dedicated to Curry's lobbing of softball questions instead of issues of greater importance.

Of course, this is an old and common argument against television news. CNN spent hours following O.J. Simpson in the white Ford Bronco. Laci Peterson, whose murder mystery was a live-action Lifetime movie. Then, Anna Nicole Smith - and Larry King and Nancy Grace's investigations into who could be the father of her baby.

And the network executives wonder why they can't keep younger viewers. Last summer, CBS thought after the forced retirement of 76-year-old anchorman Dan Rather, it would be a time to spiffy up the newscast for the much-desired younger audience. Their solution: Katie Couric. In their minds, they revolutionized the CBS Evening News by bringing in more features such as "exclusive" photographs of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby, and an anchorwoman who has as less journalism gravitas than Stewart.

Couric is, no surprise, a colossal failure now with fewer viewers than Rather at his lowest point. Newscasts are going gaga over Paris Hilton, wasting airtime over an irrelevant airhead, analyzing a molehill as though it's a mountain. And, besides a few islands of sanity, such as Keith Olbermann, the TV viewer is left to watch Jon Stewart for hard-hitting questions and the competent analysis of current events - even if it does come from a comedian. All the while, TV news is giving Stewart a run for his money by being a parody of themselves.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools