CNN's Crossfire gets an F from Jon Stewart
Look at this video of Jon Stewart standing up to Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. This is finally making the news: journalists have failed to behave with any amount of integrity is so massive and so damaging to American democracy and public discourse. Academics should get the NY Times' obituary in perspective. Stewart got on CNN's Crossfire and told Begala and Carlson that Americans are hurting because of bad journalism and its complicity with the political spinmeisters. Stewart's plea for authenticity was totally authentic and this threw Tucker Carlson's gear shift out of its normal smartass high-spirited frat boy mode and straight into real nastiness. Carlson told Stewart to be funny and Stewart shot back, "I'm not your monkey." Jon Stewart is a satirist, and he is motivated by a similar outrage with the press that many academics are expressing about the New York Times' treatement of Jacques Derrida.
Basically, Jonathan Kandell the author of the obituary got it hideously wrong about Derrida: he was aiming to please his corporate masters and felt no need to actually do any reporting. The millions of Times readers who know nothing of our world will think that Derrida was some kind of elusive, high-paid "French" philosopher who foisted something bizarre upon unsuspecting Americans called "deconstruction."
Those of us who feel bereaved now feel outraged and betrayed by the world of journalism, but if we focus completely on this particular breach of integrity and honesty, then we are missing the big picture. There are other outraged constituencies who feel as betrayed as we do by the mainstream corporate interests driven press. They are here at pandagon for instance, at Eschaton,and at Talkleft. These bloggers, among others, are distinguished by their vigilance with regard to the behavior of the mainstream press.
I just hope that the professoriate is not blind to the fact that in denouncing the journalism of the Times, they are also joining their voices to a demand, voiced by Stewart "to stop" -- that is "to stop" spreading B.S. as reportage.
I'd love to have a clear cut conspiracy theory about the Times' anti-theoretical, anti-intellectual investments, but I'll restrict myself to speculating more or less irresponsibly that none of Jacques Derrida's books has ever been published with a major advertiser in the Book Review.
On the front page of the Times, Judith Miller published a pack of lies about WMD fed to her by her bestfriend the now discredited Ahmed Chalabi, and she still has her job. So let's keep the Tiimes' failure in perspective.
Our hearts may be aching, but our democracy is ailing. What passes for public discourse is seriously distorted and damaged by witless, compromised journalism. Thank you Jon Stewart for your eloquence on this matter -- thank you for overcoming the format of Crossfire, if only for one night.
Basically, Jonathan Kandell the author of the obituary got it hideously wrong about Derrida: he was aiming to please his corporate masters and felt no need to actually do any reporting. The millions of Times readers who know nothing of our world will think that Derrida was some kind of elusive, high-paid "French" philosopher who foisted something bizarre upon unsuspecting Americans called "deconstruction."
Those of us who feel bereaved now feel outraged and betrayed by the world of journalism, but if we focus completely on this particular breach of integrity and honesty, then we are missing the big picture. There are other outraged constituencies who feel as betrayed as we do by the mainstream corporate interests driven press. They are here at pandagon for instance, at Eschaton,and at Talkleft. These bloggers, among others, are distinguished by their vigilance with regard to the behavior of the mainstream press.
I just hope that the professoriate is not blind to the fact that in denouncing the journalism of the Times, they are also joining their voices to a demand, voiced by Stewart "to stop" -- that is "to stop" spreading B.S. as reportage.
I'd love to have a clear cut conspiracy theory about the Times' anti-theoretical, anti-intellectual investments, but I'll restrict myself to speculating more or less irresponsibly that none of Jacques Derrida's books has ever been published with a major advertiser in the Book Review.
On the front page of the Times, Judith Miller published a pack of lies about WMD fed to her by her bestfriend the now discredited Ahmed Chalabi, and she still has her job. So let's keep the Tiimes' failure in perspective.
Our hearts may be aching, but our democracy is ailing. What passes for public discourse is seriously distorted and damaged by witless, compromised journalism. Thank you Jon Stewart for your eloquence on this matter -- thank you for overcoming the format of Crossfire, if only for one night.
2 Comments:
I'm sure that the intellectuals who are offended by the Times's treatment of Derrida are mostly not defenders of Crossfire! I'm not sure how these issues are getting conflated in your mind.
Yes, I'm offended by the Derrida obit too, especially because it feeds into anti-French racism. However, there's no need for a conspiracy theory at the Times. The Times is lots of people going different directions, with different values, all scrambling to hold on to the imprimatur that comes with the Great Name. Just like a prestigious university, say.
Peace, JW
JW,
I don't think I conflated professors with supporters of Crossfire -- However, Jon Stewart's condemnation of said show and the outburst of protest and criticism about the NY Times obituary of Derrida can be and should be considered together -- and well where else, but on this blog, since it represents an overlap of academia and blogtopia? (BTW, Michael Bérubé has been at this for longer than I have -- I'm not alone here either.)
I wanted to point out that in this past week, Jon Stewart accused the major media of distorting public discourse and failing to meet basic standards of journalism-- I'm hoping professors will take note of this and participate in a much broader debate about the state of journalism in the US rather than thinking that we or they alone are outraged.
As for Conspiracy Theories, I resort to them out of despair about the Times' bad coverage of arts and intellectual as well as cultural life. I'd say that they did do a certain amount of theory bashing in the past, and that with the inclusion of Sarah Boxer on their arts coverage, things have improved.
I'm grasping at straws in my attempt to understand how some one did not catch the egregiouis failures of Kandell. Your admonitions represent the voice of reason, which in a moment of desperation I found hard to channel.
Post a Comment
<< Home