Friday

The Power of Funny: Is Jon Stewart a Public Servant?

Sometimes it's more obvious than others -- Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are media watchdogs. And I guess that statement is self-evident. They make fun of every misstep of the major news networks on a nightly basis. But I think it's important not to confuse a flame-stoking satirist with someone who's willing to light the match. When Colbert and Stewart make fun of the oversights of mass media, they're wielding an enormous power, rarely better evidenced than last night's interview with Jim Cramer from CNBC's Mad Money. Cramer was finally sent on this public pillorying by his executives, and faced -- no surprise here -- an arsenal of incriminating clips. Stewart spoke from the perspective of "We, the people," demanding more ethical behavior of those who invest Our retirement funds and control Our knowledge of and confidence in a very convoluted economic system. 

Cramer's point is taken -- it's an extremely nebulous system on which to report, and, while they wish they were the first to catch Bernie Madoff, they can't win 'em all. But, after repeated sound-bite bludgeoning, Stewart exposed Cramer's repeated and blatant disingenuousness, and -- here's the real kicker -- in the process, was able to extort a very public promise: Cramer vowed, going forward, to do a better job and always try harder.

Check. Balance.

Here it is, Ladies and Gentlemen, your moment of Zen:
So maybe would could remove the financial expert and the "In Cramer We Trust" and start getting back to fundamentals on the reporting as well, and I can go back to making fart noises and funny faces.

Labels: , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Hayes S said...

Point very well made. My question is that as media watchdogs, does the power of their message conflict with their roles as entertainers? The mockery of the system of truth and representation seems to be where their power comes from - they are entertainers who comment upon news events, but never put forth any other pretension that they are still entertainers at the end of the day. Are they as effective in bringing about true public awareness, or are people resigned to classify most news as entertainment. OR, is that act valuable in and of itself?

10:33 AM  
Blogger Ashwin Sodhi said...

Likewise - I see where you're coming from. And I think even Jon Stewart acknowledges the paradox. He tells Cramer, "we're both snake-oil salesmen, but I label my show as that," while you advertise your self as a financial guru. Perhaps his statement is really, "leave the entertaining to me" - this reporting that you're supposed to do isn't supposed to be funny or interesting.

And to your point about their conflict of interest, it's apparent to me when they're bending over backwards to make a joke about something that they don't believe in (it usually flops).

That interviews like this one have any sort of power tells me they've struck some collective dischord -- and done it in the most genuine way they know.

10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home