Skip to main content

David Carr on Jon Stewart and the Media

I agree with David Carr on this, but only a little bit:

"I enjoy Mr. Stewart in his regular seat where he is less reasonable, less interested in obvious targets and less willing to suggest that all political ideas and movements are like kindergartners, worthy of understanding and respect if only the media would get out of the way. His barrage against the news media Saturday stemmed from the fact that, on this day, attacking the message would have been bad manners, so he stuck with the messengers."


It's true the "Rally to Restore Sanity" seemed oddly lacking in a point-of-view -- something you can't usually say about "The Daily Show." But it's too easy for journalists to take the "oh he's just blaming the messengers" route in examining the state of our country's affairs. Stewart's done a first-rate job of analyzing and exposing how cable news trafficks in sensationalism and false equivalencies -- the words "breaking news" have become incredibly devalued over the last decade.

Carr knows that, but points out: "In even a good news night, about five million people take a seat on the cable wars, which is less than 2 percent of all Americans." No big deal, in other words. But: walk into any congressman or senator's office -- or hell, walk into the White House -- and you'll more-than-likely find a TV turned on to Fox or MSNBC or (less likely) CNN. In some cases you'll find all three. Bizarrely, it's cable TV that is shaping the elite's view of the public discourse, and the elite returns the favor by going on cable TV around the clock to yell and call names. Karl Rove isn't on Fox every week because it's unimportant.

Reducing the cable TV audience to its numbers also ignores the multiplier effect: the opinions that viewers form in response to their TVs are the opinions they share with their family, friends and neighbors. It's why Glenn Beck, whose audience isn't that large in relation to the national population, is such an outsized influence in Tea Party circles. Or think about Rick Santelli's famous "Tea Party" rant: Who the hell ever heard of Rick Santelli before that rant? Can you even measure CNBC's audience? And yet who would deny that rant had a catalyzing effect in propelling the creation of the Tea Party movement? And do you think, say, Mike Castle or Ron Wyden think that movement was negligible in their own election losses?

Carr's right: we shouldn't rush to blame the media for problems that exist independently of them. But we can blame the media -- and cable TV in particular -- for normalizing screaming polarization: It's what sells best! Carr lets the messengers off too easily.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…