Wednesday night's episode of The Daily Show has created a lot of controversy because of Jon Stewart's eight-minute attack on the CNBC network and one of it's reporters, Rick Santelli. The segment came after Santelli canceled his scheduled appearance on the show.
Santelli was set to appear following a February on-air rant against President Obama's homeowner mortgage bailout plan. The rant quickly became a successful viral video effectively making Santelli a more well-known commentator. It even caught the attention of the White House who responded by criticizing Santelli for not knowing what he was talking about.
The amount of attention that Jon Stewart's response has created is yet another example that people pay attention to comedic satire shows for more than just entertainment. Shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report provide an outlet for challenging mainstream media's portrayal of information, especially cable news commentators. This is a vital role that more traditional news sources can not effectively provide because they are trusted with providing neutral facts.
Although CNBC has not officially responded to the painful attack against them, plenty of criticism has emerged against the segment. Critics are claiming that the clips are provided out of context which makes them seem much worse than they really are. This argument goes along the same line as claiming that both sides of the story are not presented. However, stating this argument suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of satire in comedy shows. Jon Stewart is not a journalist, as much as some people may want him to be; he is a satire comedian. Thus, I would argue that he should not be criticized for attacking CNBC, or anyone else, as long as he provides truthful information.
After watching the video, do you think that Stewart was out of line in attacking CNBC or was he just making a valid point? Should Stewart and other satire comedians present both sides of the story or is it understood that they are not real journalists who must present unbiased information?
Santelli was set to appear following a February on-air rant against President Obama's homeowner mortgage bailout plan. The rant quickly became a successful viral video effectively making Santelli a more well-known commentator. It even caught the attention of the White House who responded by criticizing Santelli for not knowing what he was talking about.
Although CNBC has not officially responded to the painful attack against them, plenty of criticism has emerged against the segment. Critics are claiming that the clips are provided out of context which makes them seem much worse than they really are. This argument goes along the same line as claiming that both sides of the story are not presented. However, stating this argument suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of satire in comedy shows. Jon Stewart is not a journalist, as much as some people may want him to be; he is a satire comedian. Thus, I would argue that he should not be criticized for attacking CNBC, or anyone else, as long as he provides truthful information.
After watching the video, do you think that Stewart was out of line in attacking CNBC or was he just making a valid point? Should Stewart and other satire comedians present both sides of the story or is it understood that they are not real journalists who must present unbiased information?
This is pure comedy. Jon Stewart is not just funny he is also making a valid point. CNBC screwed up in the past and Stewart is simply presenting facts, turning it into comedy. I don’t think he should present both sides of the story, if there is a different side to this story, because it’s a comedy show and not the Fox News, who by the way would probably run this story as news.
CNBC should now better then to cancel an appearance on a talk show at the last minute. Just ask John McCain how well things went after cancelling an appearance at the Late Show.
I agree that Jon Stewart shouldn't be criticized for attacking CNBC because he is not a Journalist and is providing truthful information to his audience. I can see how it can be offensive to Rick Santelli and CNBC as a whole because of the way that Jon Stewart uses comedy to make a situation that is being talked about sometimes worse. CNBC shouldn't cancel an appearance on a talk show at the last minute. I personally like watching Jon Stewart. I think his script is funny and the fact that he is not a journalist gives viewers a different perspective of a situation than a regular news cast.
I feel it is understood that Jon Stewart is not a journalist and that he is not obligated to provide both sides to an argument. He is doing his job. The media gets blamed for many things. With the current economic crisis and all the tension related to it, more and more fingers are pointed. Trust me, Jon Stewart is not going to hit the breaks and lay off. He will continue to do his job and create controversy.
Yes I think that because Santelli canceled his appearance on Stewart's show after his White House rant, then it gave Stewart free reign to say whatever he so pleased. Obviously, the cancellation was for a reason. Jon Stewart is a comedian-he always has been even from his early MTV days. Although his show today is more formal and informing he is NOT a journalist. Stewart's comments are for pure entertainment and Santelli's cancellation provided the perfect means to do so. Because of the large amount of viewers of the Daily Show I think it brought extra attention surrounding Santelli (his rant had taken place in February) which goes to show that people respond the humor and what Stewart says gives people a new way to look at the news.
I feel like with the current economic crisis, everyone is just tense. People are lashing out at each other, and it all comes down to competition. I do not think Stewart was out of line, it is pure comedy, and that is all. People these days need to laugh, even if it is negative. Since Santelli canceled his appointment to be on the show, he was setting himself up to be made fun of. So no, I do not think the sketch is out of line, and honestly even if I had watched it without knowing the situation I would still think that.