You’ll find Rose falling back on tropes that never fail to persuade thinking people:

• reducing a system of passing on misinformation and lack of examination down to one person (the “bad apple” defense used recently with all the corporate crime going on–drawing focus away from the system and toward an individual who can be ceremoniously fired and replaced if need be)
• how Rose’s bosses at CBS or Viacom (CBS’ owner) don’t tell him what to say. NBC and ABC newsreaders say the same thing and it rings hollow because every employee knows who writes their paycheck. Employees know what their bosses don’t want the public to hear or see, so they know that if they spill the beans they lose their job. Being independent means having nobody but the listeners to report to, in both senses of the word. Fox is the exception here, they apparently do tell their newsreaders what to say. But I find it hard to believe this is par for the course because there’s no real need for that close scrutiny.
• Agreeing with the idea of opening up a forum for the full diversity of voices in the public to be heard, knowing full well he hasn’t the authority nor the genuine desire to see that occur. If it were to happen at the network, and people saw critical analysis of those in power, he might lose his job. The last thing those in a position of power want is competition.

Forget Jon Stewart on Crossfire getting steamed and calling some guy a “dickhead”. If you want well-informed, articulate, and potent descriptions of what’s wrong with the media and how corporate influence hurts our ability to stay informed, read this interview.

The irony here is that Stewart uses the same hackneyed rhetoric as the pundits he so gleefully criticizes (calling them “partisan hacks” does not do a lot to elucidate the underlying issues Stewart would have you believe he understands) but he’s allowed to abdicate or, rather, disclaim any responsibility to engage in meaningful discussion of the issues because his show (which, by the way, I think is hysterical) is followed by prank-calling puppets.

I agree with Carlson that Stewart’s lectures are “boring” even if they do at important issues. And they’re certainly no more substantive than those delivered by the objects of his comedic ire in the mainstream media or, for that matter, the floors of Congress.

Keep telling jokes, Jon. But please don’t be so presumptuous as to take up the mantle of mainstream media’s watchdog when you’re parasitic of their shortcomings.

P.S. I agree wholeheartedly with the person who compared Stewart with Chomsky. Perhaps Stewart is even more insidious?

I would have liked to “consume” their product, but it’s low quality.

If you’d like something more substantive though, here’s Jon Stewart on the Charlie Rose show. [realaudio. ugh] Where he is given space to explore the issue further.

You get what you give.

Are you Tony Blair? Geez, if it is, wow, for someone so articulate and seemingly so bright you sure �jumped the shark� on the Iraq war business, didn�t you?

followed up by Mojo:

It�s not your fault that you don�t have a sense of humor. Plus it�s hard to understand such things when your first language isn�t En
glish.

i see issue avoidence and personal attack are alive and well even here 🙁

(Very ad-supported site; don’t forget to use the >| button to skip the pre-video commercial.)

So, the theater is the media telling you what your choices are and setting up a system where people will argue black and white over irrelevant issues. This stops people from realizing they have no choice. Eventually, one of the approved candidates will win, and We the People will have more of the same. But I suppose that is entertaining TV.

PS: Before you (whoever you are) post the inevitable argument that Clinton was somehow a Saint, please think about how much you like the DMCA, the CTEA, showing ID at the airport (yes, this first happened under Clinton), and tax law that allowed some of the biggest corporations to be paid dividends by the IRS in the last few years.