'Comedian' Jon Stewart’s Advocacy is a Joke...

The 9/11 Bill needed to be fixed before its passage, not editorialized by a 'hit and run' - off to his vacation - "comedian."

NY Times Journalists continue to think the have a finger on the pulse of America as they actually have their hand at the throat feeling their own death rattle.

Jon Stewart does hit pieces dress as mockery. He is funny by comparison only because talent and humor is in a complete present state of vacuity. He has gotten attention because of dismal state of news reporting and the NY Times is the leader and archetype representing today's 'journalism.' The article that follows is a perfect example of the problem. It is long and pompous. It is written from its single left sided point of view. The majority of the quotes, interviews and research, as it is, are used as support for a predetermined conclusion, rather than the other way around as it should be with straight reporting.

There is a double irony in this article that lies in its trying to shoehorn a comparison of Stewart to Murrow and Cronkite. Murrow and Cronkite worked for CBS when there were only two major radio networks and subsequently three TV networks. This was all thanks to government's total control over licensing (that still exists for airwaves, but not cable, much to the dismay of the networks and government). Murrow could not help be great with bombs falling around him with "This is London" reports during WWII. But he was not in Germany as was William L. Shirer, who, after the War, got frozen out by Murrow at CBS. Cronkite was just an avuncular bore who regurgitated the themes reflected from his Central Park East and West producers and owners of the "Tiffany" network. If America really knew how left-wing (truly liberal-fascist) Cronkite's opinions were, he would have been rowing boats in Central Park rather than yachting off Long Island. These were reporters who reflected the viewpoint sanctified by a fixed and corporate-government controlled media that was so limited in scope, that the reporting became editorials dressed up as reporting and the reporting turned sanctimonious,

Unfortunately, today, Stewart also believes in his own sanctimony.

Jon Stewart’s Advocacy Role in 9/11 Bill Passage - NYTimes.com

By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER

Published: December 26, 2010

Excerpts:

Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?

And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart — despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism — the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?

Certainly many supporters, including New York’s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill....

There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue — but not recently, and in much different circumstances.

“The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,” said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.

Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow’s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich’s reinstatement.

Walter Cronkite’s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election. [It should be remembered that US Soldiers and Marines won the battles of Tet and it was to Cronkite's shame that he left the American public with the opposite impression.]

Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart’s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. “He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,” Mr. Thompson said....

[If you wish to waste your time, read the full article at the above link]