March 14, 2009 06:35 AM UTC

The Daily Show and the future of news

•  
• by: DavidThi808

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

For those who have not seen it, here is the full interview (more than just what was broadcast). Required viewing.

Part I, Part II, Part III

And from the HuffPo we have this spot-on observation:

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?

So here’s the million dollar question. When cNBC has aborogated actual reporting for corporate cheerleading and the ones to call them out are a comedy show – is it a bad thing that we are seeing a total upheaval in what existing media companies will continue to exist and in what form?

We had a pretty static system from WWII till the ’80s. First cable and then talk radio wrought some changes. But in hindsight these changes were not major. They added a couple of players and diversified the voices we heard a bit. But by and large it was variations on the same old theme. CNN was more similiar to the NY Times than it was different.

But now we are seeing a radical change. The daily newspaper may survive in some mid-sized markets like Boulder, but baring radical effective change, my guess is not only the Post history, but most of the other main papers in Colorado.

And I think we face the same thing with TV News. I think TV News will continue to exist, but it will be celebrities, sports, weather, and some “be afraid” story. But the real news which is a lot more work will not be worth the cost.

But the key issue to remember is that people do want news. The Daily Show interview with Jim Cramer is being watched by a boatload of people. The problem is that people are not getting the reporting they want.

I think one major issue is that over the last 70 years journalism got locked into a “professional” approach that limits what people in the industry are willing to consider.

For example, no “real journalist” would take John Stewart’s approach of equal helpings snark and facts. They wouldn’t lower themselves to have a public namecalling spat with a news subject.

Yet this is the approach that reaches people. It may be better, it may be worse, but it is clearly what works. And by definition it is one, and just one of many many paradigm changes, that we will see our news presentation go through.

And I think we’re going to end up better off. We will look back on what we had as a system that was very good for about 40 years but that then got set in it’s ways and no longer evolved. And as Darwin said (or should have said), evolve or die.

The key point is that rather than bemoaning the loss of the old known system, we should be embracing the changes coming our way searching for what works best. Because fighting change is to lose. But those who take best advantage of the change will be our new media powerhouses.