Jon Stewart on Crossfire

[Chaerophon]

In Jon Stewart's case, he would not be outside the bounds of his rights or responsibility

Bottom line: Jon Stewart's only real responsibility is to his network, and that 'responsibility' is to fulfill his contract. If he ceases to do so, then the network has the right to find someone else to do the job. In some 'normative' sense, one could, perhaps, argue that he has a responsibility to his viewers. In actual fact, no real obligation actually exists. He hasn't set that standard for himself - he hopes to please them with his critical satire, but he does not project himself as an authority. If he wanted to, he could summarily alter the show's format, behave like a boring partisan hack with little or no wit, and not 'betray any responsibility' to the public in any meaningful sense. The consequence would probably be the end of his popularity, but that's the point. Jon Stewart's job is to entertain. He does not pretend to be a journalist. In his capacity at the Daily Show, he is no different than Letterman or Leno - at root, he is an entertainer. Well, perhaps 'satirist' is more accurate... whatever.

One could argue that Crossfire, too, is intended only as entertainment. In that case, one would be wrong. 1.) CNN is a news network and the 'crossfire team' pass themselves off as authoritative political analysts and 2.) they're not very entertaining. The hosts of crossfire are truly engaged 'political' people who are actively involved in the 'political' scene. They pass themselves off as being representative of ideological perspectives; consequently, they refuse to engage in any real dialogue or debate outside of a tired, theatrical obstinacy. Ignorance, I suppose you could call it. They contend at the outset of each show that they will "deal with the issues", and yet they do nothing but reduce the issues to bickery and partisan nonsense. They bring nothing to the public discourse, but portray themselves as arguing from the center of it. Many viewers see them as authorities, representatives of political opinion (if they weren't situated as such, then why would anyone watch them?) and yet they prattle on like children. They position themselves as men of journalistic and political integrity, and then reduce their subject to a contest of egos. THEY have a responsibility. It is a responsibility that comes, not only from their position as 'journalists', but with the public expectations that they have brought upon themselves.

Jon Stewart's only 'responsibility' is laid out in his contract; a big part of it is to bring in the ratings - seems he's doing quite well in that regard. The idiots on Crossfire don't even come CLOSE to living up to theirs. I've seen Jon Stewart ask tough questions before, I've seen him engage guests in real, interactive debate, despite the fact that he has no 'responsibility' to do so. I can't say the same for the Crossfire team, despite the fact that this is the supposed task that they mean to fulfill. The 'tough questions' are calculated ambushes and the 'debate' is far from meaningful.