Stewart v. Cramer: That's Entertainment!

A friend recently forwarded the 8-minute clip of Jon Stewart's "interview" with CNBC's Jim Cramer on The Daily Show. Although Viacom has since yanked the clip from YouTube distribution, you can view it in its entirety on The Huffington Post. Stewart assumed the role of the outraged American public, while Cramer sat as surrogate for the shamed financial industry.

Stewart's rage is absolutely justified, obviously. We The People continue to bear the brunt of Wall Street misdeeds. But the part I found interesting (beyond the question of why Jim Cramer rolls his shirt sleeves up... so... high) is Stewart's attack on the journalistic integrity of CNBC, and specifically, Jim Cramer himself. The implication was that the financial news network was "in bed" with Wall Street, and therefore its views were tainted and self-serving. That Cramer was an insider, expressing opinions that – while perhaps not benefiting him personally – demonstrated a vested interest in protecting the status quo of Wall Street.

Stewart seemed to take particular umbrage at Cramer's style of delivery on his show, "Mad Money": "I know you want to be entertaining. But it's not a fucking game."

There's an amusing irony here. Consider the following observation on the Stewart-Cramer bout, posted by Daniel Sinker, Journalism faculty member at Columbia College in Chicago on March 13, 2009 on The Huffington Post:
"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."

Rightly so. And thinking back to the days before the election, and the considerable role entertainers and pundits (and sometimes comedians posing as journalists) had in shaping public opinion on candidates and issues, one might also note that political parody in the name of entertainment is no game, either. I know they want to "be entertaining" and all, but...

Those who live in glass houses may reconsider their own role in the collapse of trust in "modern media" before casting the first stone.

When Social Networking Gets Dirty

Social networking has provided a generous playground for the cyber bully. A friend who works as CMO for a great organization called CommonSenseMedia.org – an online resource for families who are looking for kid-friendly, parent-approved content – has found she's also educating parents on what happens between kids on the web: gossip and innuendo, anonymous reputation-destruction, false identities. Bullying moves from the schoolyard to MySpace.

I recently was sent a link to a blog which has been created on behalf of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Entitled "Welcome to the PalinDrome," it purports to tell Palin's story in her own voice. I appreciate satire – a lot, actually – but this seems more like anonymous bullying than deft wielding of the "weapon of wit."

Decorated with amusing images of howling wolves, Sarah's psedoblogger waxes on cosmetic preferences (including the beer rinse which keeps one's hair shiny), possible baby names ("Cialis. Bristol just made this one up. Isn't it pretty?") and her unnamed opponent's history of "helping people in the ghetto avoid paying their electricity bills."

Yup, it's funny. But mean funny. And frankly, an unreturnable volley. The idea of assuming another's identity in order to mock them is a swell idea, but imagine its use against our current Democratic presidential candidate. Apparently it's not white men, but white trash, who are the last unprotected class.