According to a recent Pew Research poll, the Mistrusted Name in News is just as popular as the Most Trusted. Surprised to see fake anchor Jon Stewart listed right beside old-guard giants like Rather and Brokaw and new-guard stars like Cooper and Williams? Not me. Not one bit.
But not, perhaps, for the reasons you might think. No, the poll wasn't thrown by a bunch of stoned slackers; to the contrary, Stewart's audience, by and large, is savvy, educated, and engaged. In fact, publishers will tell you that The Daily Show is one of the best venues left for lesser-known authors who wish to peddle tomes on such broadly appealing topics as microlending and constitutional law.
But why are people choosing a satirist over stalwarts such as Diane Sawyer or Tim Russert (both of whom received a paltry one percent to Stewart's muscular two)? Could it be witnessing the new low of a media mogul openly admitting to an agenda for his network's coverage? International media conglomerates with more power than your average small country? (Sorry, Moldova . . . not even a dozen troops could make Stephen Colbert do the Hokey Pokey.) What about the ruthless pursuit of profits and ratings, and the hungry maw of twenty-four hour news coverage that must be fed with an endless stream of sensationalism? And if you dare to practice journalism instead of pander infotainment? Well then, John Gibson calls you a snob.
What it all boils down to is one big broken promise. A violation of contract between the mainstream news media and the public they have sworn to inform. But do the media really owe us anything? You could argue that the use of limited public airwaves necessitates a reasonably balanced presentation of public views. (This was, in fact, argued into law for decades.) Yet you could also argue that the proliferation and infinite availability of cable channels has made the "public airwaves, public responsibility" issue moot. What about moral responsibility, then? No democracy can flourish, after all, without a healthy free press. And while media corporations do have a responsibility to their shareholders, surely profits can coexist with journalistic integrity; I'm fairly certain nobody ever said, "I want to sell eyeballs when I grow up" (well, except maybe these guys), but many children aspire to be the next Walter Cronkite.
And let's not forget what the networks themselves promise to deliver. Fox News makes this heady claim: "We report. You decide." I decided they lost their last shred of credibility after failing to investigate so-called "claims by the Clinton camp" that Barack Obama had attended a fundamentalist madrassa as a child. This failure, mind you, did not stop them from reporting on the error repeatedly. CNN stepped up to the plate as "the most trusted name in news" by actually behaving like journalists with the Obama/madrassa story, but then blew their accumulated good-will by trying to pass off three weeks of wall-to-wall Anna Nicole Smith coverage as valid reportage (except for Lou Dobbs, who predictably secured his borders against such frivolity).
Nor is it simply careless reporting or a trend toward sensationalism that's hurting the relationship between the public and the mainstream media. A recklessly dangerous partisan divide is driving consumers to media outlets that function largely to reaffirm pre-existing views rather than to present information unburdened by ideology. Broadcast news has even become so polarized that the Dems recently refused to attend Fox's party (which is what happens when Ailes is too cheap to hire a professional entertainer).
Which brings us to Jon Stewart--a living, breathing, adorably giggling reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. Ironically enough, he's a face we can trust to give it to us straight in the most delightfully crooked ways. Who else could make you laugh while pointing out that "CNN at one point [went] ninety minutes without a commercial, making the death of Anna Nicole Smith a more significant news event than a State of the Union address and slightly less than 9/11"? Sadly, the mainstream media couldn't see their feet being held to the fire on that one--there was a pair of 42DD boobs in the way.
Stewart's vision, on the other hand, remains blissfully unobstructed. And sure, he's not technically a journalist, but at least when I laugh at him, it's because he's supposed to be funny.