Jon Stewart to Brian Williams: 'How Does It Feel To Fall So Short?'
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cBrian Williamswww.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full EpisodesPolitical HumorJoke of the Day
The unctuous Brian Williams tells Jon Stewart how much he looked up to Walter Cronkite - "He was a man I wanted to be" - and Stewart responds: "How does it feel, to fall so short?"
Smackdown!
Stewart then asks, "Do you think Walter Cronkite would be happy with what he sees in the news now?" Williams says yes, except for ... well, a lot of stuff that Cronkite didn't like about today's news biz.
And really, that's what it's all about, isn't it? All these media types and politicians paying tribute to a man who would absolutely horrify them if he were still alive - and still practicing journalism.
Instead, we have journalism by sound bite, by press release, by chummy relationships and the search for access.
Yes, heroes are much better when they're dead and gone, and not annoying career talking heads who aspire to gravitas without earning it.
Threw over the traces to criticize the status quo, exactly twice. First when he made the 'stalemate' remark about the 'Nam War; second when he helped make Watergate an issue (after the newspapers had broken the story).
Other than that, not so much.
of course, his breaks with conventional wisdom were significant, because no one else, then or now, could have done it.
But for the biggest part of his career, Cronkite was a reliable, sympathetic water-carrier for the Status Quo.
but I haven't seen any water delivery to our house yet.
... that the news business was also much different in the 1960's & 1970's.
There was none of the instant-gratification echo chamber we've got now via the internet and experts oozing out of the woodwork at the drop of a hat.
Brian Williams wants to celebrate the good that Cronkite and others did but not imitate him.
www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/18-4
And Brian, read the last line in Glenn's article about what regrets Walter had. In short, he regretted that people like you squandered all he worked so hard to build.
There's a great deal of difference between boasting how great and useful you are and actually being great. You are the former, Cronkite earned the latter.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
Brian Williams wants to celebrate the good that Cronkite and others did but not imitate him.
www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/18-4
And Brian, read the last line in Glenn's article about what regrets Walter had. In short, he regretted that people like you squandered all he worked so hard to build.
There's a great deal of difference between boasting how great and useful you are and actually being great. You are the former, Cronkite earned the latter.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
Maybe that's Brian's online alias?
...but now I have my next WoW alt's name.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
"Brian Williams"? ;)
Feyndgr Avitas makes a cool WoW name.
Access has been next to impossible all day.
Why I haven't been here much today.
I was afraid I'd been exiled.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
That when you have so many access issues (and trust me, I'm tearing my hair out too) it's because our server is under attack.
We're monitoring it, but it's been a trying day.
Rachel Maddow is the best journalist around. Yet if she were less personable and didn't include quirky topics, she probably wouldn't have her own show.
but isn't this the Jonny S. love-in channel?
That's the curse of deciding that news reports, like sporting events, dramatic programs, and sit-coms must earn a profit --- and to hell with giving anything back to the public for the privilege of being granted a broadcasting license to use public airwaves for free.
... the broadcaster's license stipulates. Only the requirement has been watered down to the point of being invisible. A smattering of 'community' type shows on Sunday morning.
But each station is supposed to maintain a 'public file' that members of the public can request access to, and it must contain these items.
is Brian Williams a dick, or what? He just exudes smarmy, self-important hubris from all of his beautifully tanned pores.
"Instead, we have journalism by sound bite, by press release, by chummy relationships and the search for access."
Do you mean, like, blogging? Because, that's what you do, right? And I don't mean to offend, I love blogs, but it's what it is. This post is a good example, right?
You'll actually see far more journalism taking place on blogs than you do in the mainstream media.
We don't crave access. We flout our outsider status. We don't have chummy relationships with those we cover for the most part (other than when we feature other bloggers)
We get stories by looking at news and then actually verifying information. You know, the way journalists used to.
Let's use this article as an example. Is this journalism? It's a sound bite.
Dude, most blogs ARE opinions. What's a shame is that currently the only place one can get news is from blogs - the media is little more than an echo chamber for the right wing.
Some blogs are investigative, though.
(Edit - Not just blogs: it's also a shame a COMEDY show - The Daily Show - is better at objective reporting than the mainstream media.)
I agree with you that blogs are opinions, but what we have here is someone saying that "You'll actually see far more journalism taking place on blogs than you do in the mainstream media."
The verification of the news does not constitute journalism or as a matter fact, "speaking the truth". We have people on this blog that have researched and they are very capable of conducting journalism. Neiwert is one of those. Now, I only ask from those "writting" this post and those defending it to go back in their contribution history and post a single time where they came up with new facts or clarification that hasn't been previously researched by others. You know, the way journalists used to.
many posters on here, and bloggers themselves, do exactly that. Searching through links and links of "so and so said this" in order to show the contradictions and hypocrisy. Is that not journalism?
No, it's not journalism. Fact checking required a little more leg work than mouse ckicking. By the way, I'm using the definition set by one of the posters of this blog itself: "We get stories by looking at news and then actually verifying information. You know, the way journalists used to."
... saying something factual that no one else has said before?
Even in Uncle Walter's day, news was disseminated and reported through AP and UPI as the pre-eminent wire services. Today, wire copy is joined by video; each network maintains its own affiliate newsfeed, and some of them pool video (what we call a 'pool camera' in instances where access to a room or location is limited, such as a courtroom).
Does that mean it's not journalism if we're all using the pool camera?
Journalism is about reporting the facts, and those facts shouldn't change, nor should you expect wildly different accounts from reporters who are all at the same event and see/hear the same things.
:-)
This particular blog is a political opinion blog. I didn't mean to say that we were journalists. However, there are blogs with honest to goodness paid investigative journalists on staff who actually report on stories (instead of just repeat talking points and press releases). I'd trust TPM over the NY Times or NBC any day.
We do break stories occasionally, but our focus has always been how the media and politicians try to frame the debate.
If you're looking at C&L for the news of the day, I think you're coming in with the wrong expectations. If you want to see how the media is trying to make people suspicious of Obama's health care reform, then you're in the right place.
be suspicious of Obama's healthcare insurance reform? I mean, I know that a few on here are supportive only because it's a step in the right direction, but holy cow, how many decades has it taken to get a baby step? If the political capital is there now, why not push for as much as possible instead of settling for the least of evils?
without the media's overt bias.
I think challenging authority is healthy and should be encouraged. I'd like to see more gut checks on the part of politicos on whether this is really the best plan (I think if they're at all honest, they'd say no).
However, what I mean is that the media gives Republicans carte blanche to say whatever they want against the reform, even it's not true and they give no context, make no corrections. When DeMint says that he wants to make health care reform Obama's Waterloo, it's clear that he's not objecting to health care--the subject is incidental. He wants to crush Obama politically, because they're banking on being able to regain the majority that way, just as the GOP did in 84 after trashing Hillarycare. But that political aspect doesn't get reported. The coverage is that DeMint vows to defeat health care reform.
That's what we try to highlight, the disingenuousness of the coverage.
But I think you mean '94 for trashing Hillarycare. The thought of Hillary taking on Reagan is heartening, though. :)
Divine Right of Kings (1600's); Divine Right of Corporations (2011)
I was using "journalistic" in the sense of "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media". Of course, we can debate what "news" is....maybe another time. :-)
A political opinion blog still has the obligation to search for the truth. What I'm asking is that we are balanced. I like Olbermann, but he calls himself journalist. He is a guy with a show for opinion.
Sound bite includes the dipstickery like the fuss over Judge Sotamayor's 'wise Latina' remark, which the media continued to report and mention without providing its full context.
Press release includes VNR's, or video news releases - slick little productions that look like news items, but are basically commercials. Some stations wound up running these items in part or in their entirety, and that should never have happened.
Chummy relationships defines the Bush presidency. Cutesy nicknames, feigned folksy humor and casual airs. The friendship should not supersede fact or objectivity, and these principles are usually in a company's business ethics policy, but strangely ignored because ...
The search for access has the media rolling over like puppies wanting their tummies rubbed. The exclusive interview is a joke - Charlie Gibson had an 'exclusive interview' with Sarah Palin, and so did Katie Couric. And then we have the little kaffe-klatsch where Dick Cheney gave marching orders to nutjobs like Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager.
"You'll have to ask the individuals whose names are on those emails, Jon."
On the surface, this kind of sounds like Williams being a coy smart-ass--a trying-to-be-comedic "fuck you." To me, though, it also felt like a less-than-ringing endorsement of David Gregory and the techniques used by his and other "get" shows.
"The unctuous Brian Williams . . ."
Indeed. He's greasier than a brilliantined fop.
I have to admit I always thought of Williams as a bit of a dim bulb but he held his own with Stewart which is now easy task for anyone
Well he held his own attitude without blinking. Brian Williams seemed a little too snarky for someone that had just been put in his place. It seemed like to Williams returning to a real Cronkite format news show is an unrealistic, or unnessesary goal or something. He should know it has to be done and soon.
If the MSM doesn't get back to basics they are going to be replaced, eventually.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
So you want to lay all of the failings of main stream media/news at the doorstep of Brian Williams - be my guest. I don't pretend that he's a perfect man or journalist, but I think he's a bright man who genuinely cares about the news and attempts to maintain the integrity of journalism. I also think that he tries to do these things within the framework of today's network news business, and that that is his undoing. He's flawed, but I'm not willing to reduce him into some sort of caricature of all that you find wrong with modern television news. And the "attitude" that people seem to be put off by in this clip - haven't you seen Brian and Jon together before? It's their combative schtick that they always do - that Jon loves, by the way - and is one of the reasons that Brian has been a frequent guest. Sure Jon takes issue with television news, but that doesn't mean he doesn't both like and respect Brian Williams.
They BOTH love the back and forth!
He sure as shit has a great sense of humor...and can take it as well as dish it out.
I thought it was a funny as hell segment.
http://www.progressive.org/wx072009.html
Comments are closed on this entry