I think (emphasis on I think) what J. Stew was trying to do was argue that the focus of the cable channels on the horse race (who loses and who wins politically) was a problem, and not the most beneficial for the country. By shifting to something like the corruption/anti-corruption angle he brought up with Maddow, it might be easier to get past the ideological fights and get to more beneficial stories. In that way, Stewart might think cable TV could get stuff done like all those cars at the rally merging into the tunnel.
David ________________________________ From: PGage <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: So Donz, you believe that MSNBC is nonpartisan and its hosts offer >nonbiased news and information? Because I don't think Stewart is >claiming MSNBC is like FoxNews, but the claim is they are not >producing journalism free of a political slant, and the political >slant does more harm than good. At some point along the way, MSNBC >abandoned being a source of journalism in favor of being a showcase >for opinionated pundits. (SNIP) > But can't we get beyond this simple dichotomy? There are more points on the continuum than simply "like Fox News" or "paragon of journalistic integrity". The defenders of MSNBC have to stop relying on the "FN is worse than us" defense - we know they are, but that is irrelevant. But media critics need to stop arguing that because MSNBC falls short of the journalistic ideal they are really nothing but a variant of FN. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
