Yes, the whole thing has been overblown. No, it doesn't really matter. Yes, Jon took some cheap shots, easy to do on his home turf. But to be honest, I agree with everything he's ever said about the news media, both the other night with Jim Cramer (the extended version online is worth watching, btw) and a few years ago on Crossfire. The reaction has been great for both pure entertainment purposes and serious analysis of Jon's role in this crazy world.
Highlights:
Andrew Sullivan @ The Atlantic ("what Stewart has done is rip off that little band-aid of faux solidarity for a modicum of ethical and moral accountability")
"Tim F." @ some blog called Balloon Juice ("For a reason that escapes me, people who are paid to understand politics all seem to think that “access” to people with a PR staff will get them some special insight when the only difference between speaking to them anonymously and asking their spokesperson is that the person can lie and most people will never know. Naturally the public would know if you called him on it, but then he wouldn’t take your calls. Catch 22!")
Bruce Watson @ Daily Finance ("[Stewart] is, effectively, America's fool. In the classic context, a fool was the only one in a king's court who could speak the truth because he was also the only one capable of making it palatable")
Megan McArdle, also @ The Atlantic (she has the problem that many do with Stewart - that he can basically say whatever he wants and then retreat to "don't take it seriously; it's a comedy show." I have no problem with this - people should be able to distinguish news from entertainment, even when they begin to resemble each other - but I'd be interested in what you guys think)
Yes yes I want to sleep to Jon Stewart. Whatever, I have no responsibility to be objective here. I will, however, quit plugging Comedy Central for a while.
March 14, 2009
March 12, 2009
A question for the floor.
Is there any information yet on Obama's effect on US popularity abroad, especially in the Middle East?
March 11, 2009
Shameless plug for my favorite entertainer
NASA is holding a contest to name their newest "orbiting laboratory." Stephen Colbert has launched on effort to have it named after him. His name currently leads the write-in votes, but he has to beat the number of votes for NASA-picked names to win. So go to here, click "suggest your own," and write in "Colbert."
Because an orbiting laboratory sounds awesome. And forcing Fox and other news networks to report that "Colbert is launching into space" would be even awesomer.
March 10, 2009
Planet, Public Information in Peril
I am in the early stages of trying to restart the green initiative in my office. That the public, even the intelligent and well-educated, is poorly informed on global warming is not surprising to me. Friday night, however, I found myself at a trivia event organized by one of my coworkers and attended by many. When fewer than one-in-five was able to identify "The three Rs of recycling" (reduce, reuse, recycle) I realized the problem was much more grave than I thought.
I'm going to put together a presentation, and I know I'll be facing an audience that is, generally, skeptical. If you have information that might be helpful, I'd love to have it. I'm thinking of things like Wikipedia saying that there is no longer any scientific body that disputes global warming (although I find their citation of this statement insufficient) or like a report I saw that said something along the lines of "The 2007 IPCC report's claims were so extreme they were considered ignorable; however, all data thus far on the effects of global warming has exceeded the report's projections." Basically - evidence that might not be the most persuasive, but at the very least is nearly indisputable.
I put this post together in many pieces so it might be incoherent but should still be understandable. I know this is a chore but any help you can give is appreciated, and keep in mind that I'll have an audience of about 50, at most 10 of whom go about their lives any differently than they would were global warming not an issue, so in terms of impact, your efforts might be getting more bang for their buck than almost anything else you do.
Oh, and I forgot to mention - the impetus for this post coming right now was this article, which claims that even under best case scenarios, we're down to a coin flip at saving the planet.
I'm going to put together a presentation, and I know I'll be facing an audience that is, generally, skeptical. If you have information that might be helpful, I'd love to have it. I'm thinking of things like Wikipedia saying that there is no longer any scientific body that disputes global warming (although I find their citation of this statement insufficient) or like a report I saw that said something along the lines of "The 2007 IPCC report's claims were so extreme they were considered ignorable; however, all data thus far on the effects of global warming has exceeded the report's projections." Basically - evidence that might not be the most persuasive, but at the very least is nearly indisputable.
I put this post together in many pieces so it might be incoherent but should still be understandable. I know this is a chore but any help you can give is appreciated, and keep in mind that I'll have an audience of about 50, at most 10 of whom go about their lives any differently than they would were global warming not an issue, so in terms of impact, your efforts might be getting more bang for their buck than almost anything else you do.
Oh, and I forgot to mention - the impetus for this post coming right now was this article, which claims that even under best case scenarios, we're down to a coin flip at saving the planet.
March 09, 2009
Doom and Gloom
I always just skip past the big headline on Drudge, so imagine how depressing it was as a read all the headlines I could see below and then, already depressed, scrolled up to see the headline and image ...
