"This Song Ain't About You": The Media Misses the Real Message of the Stewart/Cramer Interview

If you didn't watch Jon Stewart's interview with Mad Money's Jim Cramer last night, don't worry--it's unavoidable today. Here's just a selection of front pages from news sites around the web:

Yes, you're seeing that right: the Governor of Illinois (the new one, that is) floating a trial balloon about a 50% tax hike plays second fiddle to coverage of Stewart/Cramer (this discrepancy is followed up even more by Our Man in Chicago).

It took a little while for the Grey Lady to join in the fun, but she's touting the story big now.

Yes, even this very website, touted as a standout of journalism's online future, gets in on the fun.

And why not, right? It's the thing everyone's talking about--in part because the media has built it up as something to talk about. Which is exactly the problem: it misses the point entirely.

Near the end of the interview (which, if somehow you haven't seen it, is worth watching), Cramer begins to weasel out an explanation to Stewart (the specifics are unimportant, but if you need to know it involved why Cramer utilizes banana cream pies in his financial program) when Stewart interrupts him and says, indignantly, "As Carly Simon would say, 'This song ain't about you.'" It was a point largely lost on Cramer, who continued to defend his own show against Stewart's much larger indictment, but it was also a point lost on the many media outlets that covered this basic cable dustup as actual, honest-to-god news.

You see, Stewart's real critique wasn't about Cramer, it was also only marginally about CNBC. Instead, Stewart's real rage comes from the role the modern media has created for itself: the role of cheerleader instead of watchdog, of favoring surface over depth, of respecting authority instead of questioning it.

It's the same critique that some have about the New York Times (and the rest of the media) in the leadup to the war in Iraq; the same critique lobbed every time a TV reporter does a stand up in front of the Apple Store before a product release; the same critique leveled every time a sensational murder steals a headline from a corporate crime: is this really the job we want the fourth estate to be doing?

Just take a gander at some of the other leads around the web--surprisingly, Stewart didn't actually command attention from everywhere:

But none of these stories--Ana Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson tickets, Michelle Obama giving an interview to Good Morning America--pass muster either. None of them address the issues of our time with the fearless tenacity that Stewart brings to his show most nights, and he's a comedian.

When we can't compete with a comic in terms of speaking truth to power, then it's more clear than ever that journalism in the US has lost its way. It comes as no surprise then when, as newspapers crumble around the country, a report like the one released by the Pew Research Center this week says that only 33% of people would miss their local newspaper "a lot." When you lead with a story about an interview that happened on a comedy show--and it's the very same story that almost everyone else is leading with as well--what's to miss?

What's to miss--the refrain is always repeated--is the investigative reporting that helps to keep our leaders honest, our water clean, our businesses pure. What's to miss is people asking fearless questions to those that need them asked. What's to miss is the deep pockets that can fund a reporter to dig and dig and dig until she's able to uncover some fragile truth. And yes, that stuff is vital to the functioning of a democracy. It also, let's speak the truth here, doesn't happen very often.

Traditional news organizations have nothing to lose right now. Why not take a gamble at the one thing they haven't tried: being fearless. Stewart would probably appreciate the company.

Comments

[rirhodes]

Unfortunately, our newspapers deserve to fail. Our local newspaper, the Rockland Journal News which is a Gannett paper, has so few reporters that even if it wanted to it would not be able to follow any store in depth or follow up stories as they developed. The notable exception being stories about sex, violence and crime.

As more and more reporters disappear from the scene the folks who care about their communities and want more information than they can get on the local TV news (sex, violence and crime) decide slowly but surely that the local rag is no longer worth supporting.

We have so much corruption in our county that a couple of good investigative reporters could bring some real interest and readership back, but it won't happen.

Robert I. Rhodes, Chairman, Preserve Ramapo, www.PreserveRamapo.org

[Swgordon]

The appeal of sensationalism runs quite deep and is the primary way for the media to attract viewers, yet the content of these "tragic" stories is never so bad as to discourage the viewer from returning the news program of their choice.

I would be delighted to see a significant upheaval in the media surrounding a fresh group of "fearless" reporters, but change and revolution don't make for steady paychecks, and money makes the world go round.

Fortunately, alternative viewpoints are always available on the internet, it's just a shame most headline media stories aren't worth crosschecking. (less pressure to watch out for errors though)

[LALAW]

For the real headline of the Stewart/Cramer interview, see the post below from alanrockville.

[Clavis]

When our media are no longer corporate profit-making tools, and are once again worthy of the First Amendment, we won't have this problem.

I don't know that that's ever going to happen, but that's what it would take.

[Athena123]

"You see, Stewart's real critique wasn't about Cramer, it was also only marginally about CNBC. Instead, Stewart's real rage comes from the role the modern media has created for itself: the role of cheerleader instead of watchdog, of favoring surface over depth, of respecting authority instead of questioning it." YES, this is exactly the problem. So journalists, let's resolve it now. Let's bring credibility back to journalism.

[doesnotsufferfools]

It's not simply, or even mostly, about individual journalists. It's about the corporate media, the system itself. Like everyone else, individual reporters need their jobs. Some will still be fearless and challenge power, taking the risk of offending the powerful. Others won't.

The real solution is not simply to exhort journalists to be fearless; it's to change the incentives (and disincentives) built into the structure of corporate media. That, alas, will take more than cheer-leading and individual resolution.

[AlanRockville]

There were two parts to Stewart's message. The article above only touches one of them, the issue of the media such as CNBC not taking on the large companies that rip us off.

The second and related issue has to do with the 2 "stock markets" - one that we use for our 401Ks and one that day-traders use for short-term profits. The latter market has hedge funds, which do things like spread false rumors about companies so that a stock price can go down so that some investors can make a short sell and profit. This is hardly regulated enough, the financial networks know that this is going on, but CNBC and the rest put their heads in the sand because they want to play the games as well.

I hope this second aspect of Stewart's commentary gets more focus. I'd like to see short sales eliminated or much more heavily taxed. I want investors to create jobs, not just bet on failure.

[BobQueuePublic]

This piece is appreicated. Everyone's fallen all over themselves to praise Stewart and skewer Cramer (myself generally included).

But what we need is for reporters to understand all these arcane banking, investment and corporate shell-gaming mechanisms. The problem is reporters aren't paid very well as a whole, and even those who are are woefully ill-equipped to understand the inside baseball of money.

On the other hand, journalists don't need to understand the topic they are covering so much as dig deep into their beats. To get good reporting, management would have to support more long-term investigative work, which is in short supply because it costs more per column inch at a time when budgets won't allow it. I fear for the Fourth Estate. But I hope we can get through this and come out the other end with some kind of print-and-online amalgam that works.

[Ipanemagirl]

I wish Stewart would do the same to expose Rush, O reilly,Hannity, Ann coulter, sarah palin, and all those who are currently constantly misleading and poisoning the minds of people with lies and deceit, for this is dangerous to all and should be dealt with! Problem is , none of those low lifes would ever have the courage to show up and debate Stewart on his show or anywhere else, for that matter.

[dizmo4]

You miss the point.

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Coulter are already jokes. They're all entertainers who the vast majority of people view as entertainers. No serious, rational person gets their news from any of them. None of them are pretending to be anything other than what they are. They may view themselves differently, but the wool isn't being pulled over the public's eyes the way it is with CNBC (and the media in general).

The point of the article above and Stewart's point is that CNBC proclaims to be THE financial network where everyone should turn to for sound financial advice. But CNBC is crap--its a mouthpiece for big Wall Street firms looking to talk up their stocks. CNBC doesn't do real journalism which is holding people accountable, investigating and uncovering the things that powerful interests don't want the public to know.

They're two completely separate categories.

[DemoGoddes]

Bravo! Lest anyone forget the name of the Carly Simon song to which Stewart eluded, it is "You're So Vain." To paraphrase an old quote, "Vanity, they name is Journalism." Many journalists have become so enthralled with the sound of their own voices and fearful of loosing their coveted "access" to official sources that they can no longer act as the watchdogs of our democracy as Stewart has pointed out many times. I suspect that he uses comedy and self-deprecating humor to try and stay grounded. It may be that the comic medium is his and Colbert's saving grace.

[ktbuckman]

"When we can't compete with a comic in terms of speaking truth to power, then it's more clear than ever that journalism in the US has lost its way. "
The argument that journalism has lost it's way is hard to refute, but I'm not sure how I feel about any sort of comparison between Jon Stewart and journalists. This isn't because I think the work of a comic is less important than the work of a journalist. Quite the contrary. Satirists have been some of the most important political figures in history. Look at Aristophanes, Chaucer, Jonathan Swift. Check out the entertainment that is produced around any oppressive regime and then look at the regime's response to it. It is powerful stuff. But it is necessarily different from journalism. And part of my concern is that we need Jon Stewart as a satirist. When we start laying these other, different responsibilities at his feet, the satire WILL evaporate. I wish that Stewart had taken this interview somewhere other than his show, so he could clearly be in another role. I felt that he was in another role when he was on Crossfire, and I appreciated his appearance. I am torn because I want someone to do this work and ask these questions, and if journalists aren't doing it, well... But it needs to be someone other than Jon Stewart...he's just too valuable as a satirist.

[AndThenOneDay]

He will be back to -as he said- f art noises today. Might take a little swipe at Carlson, but isn't going to make a point of resuscitating his career for him.

[MarsAmbassador]

We ALL have the right to express our anger ala how Jon Stewart does/did, regardless of what we do for a living. You must be a Republican, or otherwise you'd already understand that VERY CLEARLY. Stewart and Colbert are the only two real journalists left on TV, as far as I'm concerned. They investigate, they expose and they cut to the core of every single issue. Just because it makes you laugh, doesn't make it any less serious.

[Donnat]

No comparison what so ever. Cramer may be clowning but the average Joe out there WILL invest according to what Cramer is spouting.

Jon has never scammed anyone out of their money, pumped and dumped stock on his show, or admitted on TV that he's breaking the law because the government agency that regulates it is too dumb to know what he's doing. He's fighting the good fight and am I ever glad.

[raker]

Just listen to the designated media apologists like Tucker Carlson. I haven't heard him dispute any facts in Jon Stewart's case, or heard him counter Stewart's view that cable news causes harm to America. Instead he calls Jon Stewart names. The soul of the Republican Party is the soul of a sixth grade bully. They would be pitiable if they weren't so dangerous.

[GolfingDevil05]

Tucker Carlson still has yet to take Jon Stewart's advice to go to journalism school, so I'm not surprised to see that he doesn't get it.

[spartacus275]

He did take one of JS's suggestions and got rid of that f@#king bow tie.

[Wendy Hanawalt]

Isn't Jon Stewart saying something that NEEDS to be said? And why aren't the actual journalists saying it?

Trashing him because he's saying what needs to be said because he's a comedian is just ridiculous. The court jester in medieval times was allowed to "speak truth to power" because it was funny. In the words of Dane Cook: "It's funny BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. True, therefore funny."

Crossfire and its ilk IS the assassin of powerful political discourse. Big networks ARE in the pockets of the rich and powerful, totally. Let's hear ole "fair and balanced" Fox ever ever EVER take a position that Ailes and Murdoch do not endorse. I'm waiting. How many times have the folks on the Today show shilled GE products? Please.

TV is an entertainment medium. Drama sells. Controversy sells. Stewart is an entertainer and has never claimed to be otherwise. But organizations like CSNBC, CNN, and yes, even my beloved MSNBC are song and dance shows, too. They just lie about who's playing the music.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

He is calling out the media that has failed us for so ong....so they, like always, immediately go on a smear campaign to hide their incompetence. It's like the Republican party.

[DrJohnnySkeptic]

I hope that the day will come soon that Jon Stewart is recognized for his insight and brilliance. He's a genius who is completely discounted and unappreciated.

[Brian Mc.]

Cramer's appearance on Stewart wasn't an interview - it was Jon Stewart lecturing Cramer for 20 minutes. Terrible television and a waster opportunity. I'm a huge Stewart fan, but that was embarrassing - why not have a debate or at least the appearance of one.?

He didn't ask any questions. Ironic that he calls out CNBC for shoddy journalism and then does none of his own.

I'm sure he got lots of high fives from his staff after the show, but it was lame at best and proof that Jon should stick to jokes and witty insight. Maybe also proof that the genius of the show resides in its writers and researchers.

[YankinCanada]

Cramer had a lot of opportunities to defend himself. It's just that he couldn't. His stand and shock jock economic performance was reprehensible, as is your comment.

Jon is waaay ahead of you, try and keep up instead of bending over and trying to catch your breath and curse the race.

[BoVandy]

"He didn't ask any questions. Ironic that he calls out CNBC for shoddy journalism and then does none of his own. "

Some people continue to miss the point. Stewart has never claimed he was a journalist. why would he care if what he did was considered shoddy journalism. The fact that people still don't understand the very real difference between Stewart, and the Media is an indictment on more than just the media.

I love Jon Stewart, and apparently am in the minority of people who understand why he carried out the "interview" the way he did

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

You're not in the minority. I think most who saw the interview agree with you, as do I. You're just dealing with trolls.

[Schockedandawed]

Did you actually read this article?

[AndThenOneDay]

Cramer was there because Santelli punked out. As it was there was footage of Cramer explaining how to manipulate the market, start rumors, etc, and adding 'this will never be on TV'.

Stewart has only done this twice to my knowledge - gotten very serious. The other time, the media was also the target: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE&eurl Hence, the blather coming from the disposed-of Tucker Carlson this weekend.

On the one hand it's a comedy show. On the other hand, the laughs are in the absurdity of public behavior and the challenged ethics of the actors. At the end of the day, if he never pauses to be serious, he's just a cynic who is cashing in on the misery caused by others.

This was needed. Unfortunately. He said at the end that he wanted to get back to f art noises, etc. And so he will.

[goodhelp]

Get a Grip, Brian. I'm sure we watched the same program--what was it that you didn't get? The hours of videotape Stewart and staff watched and edited to make his damning case? The helpless, deer-in-th­e-headligh­ts look on Cramer's face when these clips were over? Cramer's lame excuses?

Doing the homework, citing the facts, playing the videotape(!) and asking the primary source tough questions IS the soul of journalism.

Journalism: "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable...and raise a little hell once in a while."

Unless you think "People" magazine is journalism!