Thank good someone is covering the really important story's in the media landscape!!! Keep up the good work...

You have to be kidding, right? I mean, you have a Ph.D and a job as a writer for a major metropolitan newspaper, so this cannot be a serious piece of media criticism. Can it?

You ask (twice, even) if there is "any working media critic" as effective as Jon Stewart in "generating the kind of real change" as he has, so my question to you is: What, exactly, has Jon Stewart done to change the media landscape?

I cannot think of any other examples of Stewart doing anything more than merely lamenting the sad state of journalism in this country, in particular our political reporting.

You have all ready cited the demise of CNN's horrid "Crossfire" in 2004, shortly after Stewart's appearance. Tucker Carlson, by the way, disagrees that "Crossfire" was canceled because of Stewart, but that might be another story.

You also mention Stewart's mocking of MSNBC's coverage of the conventions this year as a catalyst for the network removing Olbermann and Matthews from anchoring election night coverage. I also think this overstates Stewart's pull in the news media and even you admit that "there is always more than one reason for a change this big."

So, aside from those two things, what else has he done? It seems to me that his pleas to the press corps in Denver fell on deaf ears. The post-convention coverage has been a morass of nonsense, almost all of it focused on VP candidate Palin and almost none of that focused on anything of substance regarding her.

As I wrote last month in my silly little web notebook, the time has come for Stewart to put up or shut up about the media. I suggest he start his own real news show and let competition with the Established shows determine if his ideas can hold up. After all, the Vicious Cycle of economic market forces in the news media are still in play and no amount of complaining coming from a comic, or real media critics, or even bored nihilists like myself will change anything.

Only when someone shows that there is a profitable alternative to presenting intelligent political news and information will it become the standard and not the exception.

And Stewart is doing little to advance that idea in practice.

Mat is a moron. Studies show that daily show viewers a more informed than those of the cable news networks. "Put up or Shut up"? Isn't that what the daily show is all about? Stewart is doing it in his own way and should be commended for that.

Don't forget that Jon Stewart also produces the Colbert Report. And no one can deny the impact Colbert made when he spoke at the correspondence dinner dropping bombs right in Bush's lap.

Considering how much press Olbermann's behavior got even outside The Daily Show, I'm not sure I would give Jon Stewart too much credit for the change of hats at MSNBC. Certainly he contributed, but not nearly as much as he did in 2004 when he went on Crossfire. That interchange was news of its own, and while of course the CNN execs looked at the ratings when making their decision, they also directly referenced Jon Stewart in explaining why it had to go. Anyway, what does Tucker Carlson know?

I think Jon Stewart hasn't generated all that much "real change" in the media as a whole, but he's certainly changed the way we (who watch his show) see it.

Yes, thanks for reminding the previous commentator who mentioned Tucker Carlson of what I said in my post: CNN President Jonathan Klein cited Stewart in making the move. And a strong secod to "What does Tucker Carlson know?"Z

A second thought: You are so right about saying "real" change: because fundamentally, of course, as media instutions, he is not triggering change. He is changing the face of cable TV. But I would argue that forcing channels to distinguish between commentary and reporting, as well as ending the phony, jumped partisan bickering, does have the potential for serious cultural change. But thanks for the distinction. Z

I think Jon Stewart did in *fact* influence this. He had mocked Olbermann/Mathews/Scarborough the night before the interview. From the gasps of the crowd watching the exchanges, it was obvious that they, like myself, hadn't seen it.

The network heads may have thought adding some spice would boost their ratings, and that's why they did nothing at first. It was only after Jon Stewart made fools of the network heads - "Is there no one in control over there??", -that they acted. The ribbing of Williams just gave him ammunition to go back his network with Brokaw and say "See, we told you!"

It's Crossfire 2.0

I don't think I'm an idiot. I may not be a genius or anything, but I am not an idiot. An idiot might, maybe, cite a study from 2004 which found that Daily Show viewers had a better grasp of the *facts* of the 2004 general election issues when compared to viewers of Fox News and an idiot might skip over a recent study from The Project for Excellence in Journalism which stated that the news content of the Daily Show is comparable to that of Hardball and other shows *and* that Daily Show viewers simply *must* be watching other news shows, otherwise they wouldn't get the jokes.

An idiot might also get lost in that previous sentence.

Also, how can Stewart's producer credit on Colbert Report have any bearing A) on this discussion and, B) any bearing on what Colbert said at the Correspondent's Dinner?

Seriously, I know people love Stewart and/or Colbert and I think they are funny people, but I don't think they have a large impact on either media issues or politics. Stewart himself has said repeatedly that he is first and foremost a comedian, not a media critic and not a commentator. In fact, he has drawn criticism for this stance in light that not many comedians get politicians lining up for their "comedy news shows."

Mat doesn't sound like an idiot to me. I do however think there's no real question that John Stewart has enormous power to influence culture and that includes TV news as well as print journalism. Many people trust his assessment of things more than mainstream newscasters probably because he doesn't pretend not to be biased. And he's really funny.