exploreyourself

Right. To put a finer point on it: Stewart isn't upset that Crossfire isn't a debate per se, but that it claims to be one when it is not. He's upset that some people will watch shows like this and feel that they have been informed when in reality a lot of words were used to say almost nothing at all. This is why he is very forthright about admitting that his show is not a news show and that people who rely on it as such are making a mistake.

Somewhere in the clip he says something along the lines of 'I don't doubt that people on each side of the aisle believe what they do, but the arguements that they use to try to convince the rest of us aren't honest'.

That's the heart of it, IMO. This is why Pres. Bush can state at the last debate something like 'I never said that I don't worry about Osama' when he said exactly that at a news conference earlier this year. The arguement is not honest. If the arguement is not honest then the position that it is purporting to advance is suspect. If you can't follow somebody's line of reasoning, then it is reasonable to think that their position is merely an expediency.

I too found it sad that the hosts tried to avoid the questioning of their responsibility that Stewart was trying to raise and wanted to talk about almost anything else: the O'riely sexual allegations and Stewart's book, for example. One host even devolved to calling Stewart Kerry's "Butt boy". This is what passes for debate in this country now: deflection, obfuscation and ad-hominem attacks.

The fact of the matter is that news is big business these days. I don't have anything against big business per se but a quality news show like Lehrer's News Hour gets terrible ratings. There's a reason it's on PBS and not a major network - there's no money to be made in it.

This leads into the broader cultural trend that people (at least in the US - I don't know about other places) only want to hear what they already believe. They want external validation of their pre-existing beliefs - not a balanced and nuanced look at complex issues that are much more grey than either black or white. Thus the existance of Fox news and now, in response, Air America.

I commend Stewart for forgoing the opportunity to pimp his book and tackle an important issue. I suspect that, ultimately, very little will come of it - but I hope I'm wrong. As Stewart said: the media isn't holding politicians' feet to the fire to be accountable for what they say and do. But who would be the first to start? There's no incentive for them to do so.

And therein lies the real tragedy: that our media needs an incentive to protect the interests of the public. A strong and vigilant fourth estate is essential for a flourishing democracy. But until we, as citizens (not as voters, or consumers, etc) demand a change we will continue to get exactly what we are asking for.