If I were a journalist, I’d be angry.

First, my first reaction is absolutely we could do better. —Jim Cramer

You’ve seen the video by now, if not go and see it in all its 3 part glory. What gets me about this whole thing is two fold:

1. It was never about Cramer in the first place.
2. What does it say about the state of our media, when John Stewart is lauded for his journalism?

The interview was certainly timely and culturally relevant, and by all means interesting and revealing. After all, how often do you have a journalist¹ sound so apologetic at the hands of a mere comedian², while openly admiting that he knowingly has guests spread bold faced lies on his show which he allows to go unchallenged? Certainly, Cramer bears the culpability for allowing his show to become it’s own parody and misguiding his viewer’s investments, and there’s no denying the schadenfreude from watching Cramer fold, but that’s not what this is about.

“He brings me in, lies to me, lies to me, lies to me.”

I’m under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I’m under the assumption that you don’t just take their word for it at face value. That you actually then go around and try and figure it out. —John Stewart

The television media is, by nature, a conglomeration of talking heads and news anchors—positions that typically require a greater breadth of knowledge than depth. But even that isn’t problematic by itself. The news anchor may not be a scientist, but must present scientific news. What is an issue is the prominence television is taking in our digestion of daily news.

Aside from the occasional truly investigative report, TV news is all about the glamor. Sure, you can edit down the boring parts of an interview before air, but an interview is a singular event. It alone won’t reveal a pattern of lies, and it alone cannot shake a well trained spokesman³ out of a well rehearsed party-line when he knows the interview will be over in an hour. But, hey, it gets the eyeballs if you can get a high profile name in your studio chair.

As we demand evermore concise, unambiguous and timely news reports, more and more lies, fibs and other untruths are allowed to go unchallenged. Good reporting needs time to ask questions, digest the answers, and repeat until the full story is revealed. TV doesn’t exclude that process, but it’s emphasis on a visually interesting story can supersede the need for thoughtful reporting.

It’s not about Cramer, it’s not about CNBC, it’s not even about the 24 hour news cycle: It’s about our insatiable appetites for clean sound bites and definitive advice that drive us to graze at quick news anecdotes, rather than rich news stories.

Snakeoil Salesman

So maybe we could remove the financial expert and the “In Cramer we Trust” and start getting back to fundamentals on reporting as well. And I can go back to making fart noises and funny faces. —John Stewart

John Stewart has always been a stalwart critic of the media, and it’s never been undeserved. But, like all good comedians, what Stewart excels at isn’t reporting or investigating, it’s observation. The only weapons a Stewart has against you is your own words. He is smart, he is perceptive, and his criticisms manage to reveal some truth about his subjects. But, he’s no journalist. Stewart does not “go around and try and figure it out;” his comments are strictly reactionary.

So, how does someone who does so little reporting receive allacodes from both the public and media for his journalism? Has the field sunk so low that the confused and angry ramblings of a TV jester qualify as award-winning journalism?

Fundamentals

I’m not the only one, Colin asks:

Does Woodward really have to be the Woodward of our time?

It’s not glamorous, it’s all about the fought for quotes, and the hours of phone calls just to get past a receptionist. All for a story that spans across multiple installments and weaves it’s way to the truth.

It still happens, I’m sure, but it doesn’t seem to get the attention it should. I’m just glad I’m not a journalist myself, otherwise If I wasn’t angry, I’d be extremely discouraged to see the industry have one good rant misinterpreted as good journalism.