News University | Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists. |
| |
Webinars | Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more. | |
|
|
 
Romenesko
Latest News
Reporting
& Writing
Ethics &
Diversity
Leadership
& Business
Visual
Journalism
Online &
Technology
TV &
Radio
Journalism
Education
|
Article Feedback
View all Romenesko feedback
Stewart's CNBC attack was unfair, but not inaccurate
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback |
Feedback Guidelines |
Report Feedback Abuse
Page 1 of 1
Gonzo journalism?
Posted by
Anthony DeBartolo
3/9/2009 8:05:10 AM
perception, they say, is reality & there's and awful lot of (young) people who like stewart's take on the news - and for them it...
perception, they say, is reality & there's and awful lot of (young) people who like stewart's take on the news - and for them it is journalism ... just as many used to like dave barry's take on the news as a newspaper humor columnist ... journalism - especially for those who don't consider it to be a profession, but rather a trade - isn't one unified whole - it has lots of flavors.
as for being "fair" & "accurate", many could argue fox news is neither & no one is saying they're not practicing journalism.
is/was hunter thomson a journo?
from wiki: "Gonzo journalism tends to favor style over accuracy and often uses personal experiences and emotions to provide context for the topic or event being covered. It disregards the 'polished' edited product favored by newspaper media and strives for the gritty factor. Use of quotations, sarcasm, humor, exaggeration, and even profanity is common. The use of Gonzo journalism suggests that journalism can be truthful without striving for objectivity and is loosely equivalent to an editorial."
A bit late for this now...
Posted by
Biff Biffstein
3/7/2009 2:27:29 PM
But I think several people in here are commenting based on the poorly constructed summary in this site, and not on the actual item itself....
But I think several people in here are commenting based on the poorly constructed summary in this site, and not on the actual item itself. I would suggest, as a general rule, reading the original item before popping off.
Thank you, Rob ...
Posted by
Beth Kujawski
3/6/2009 1:14:28 PM
Exactly what I thought when I saw this story: He's not a journalist. He doesn't have to hew to journalistic standards.
Exactly what I thought when I saw this story: He's not a journalist. He doesn't have to hew to journalistic standards.
Self-styled "fake news"
Posted by
Paige Turner
3/6/2009 1:06:01 PM
It's one of our great blessings that we have Jon Stewart telling the truth instead of reporting the facts. No need to expand your press...
It's one of our great blessings that we have Jon Stewart telling the truth instead of reporting the facts. No need to expand your press analysis into this separate segment of the entertainment industry Ð there's enough to cover in the continuing demise of principled journalism.
nope...
Posted by
Biff Biffstein
3/6/2009 12:52:33 PM
Just that journalists shouldn't be encouraged to practice journalism as if they were satirists, where the standards and purposes are different.
Just that journalists shouldn't be encouraged to practice journalism as if they were satirists, where the standards and purposes are different.
I'm lost.
Posted by
Carole Simmons
3/6/2009 12:32:13 PM
Okay. I don't get it. Is he saying that Stewart was right in what he said, he just shouldn't have said it?
Okay. I don't get it. Is he saying that Stewart was right in what he said, he just shouldn't have said it?
CNBC's own bias
Posted by
andrew Horan
3/6/2009 12:29:19 PM
What's with CNBC anchors, commentators and guests now freely referring to good business practices as 'Obama-proofing?'
Shouldn't they be sayin...
What's with CNBC anchors, commentators and guests now freely referring to good business practices as 'Obama-proofing?'
Shouldn't they be saying 'Paulson-proofing' or 'Bernanke-proofing?'
Dude.
Posted by
Rob Weir
3/6/2009 11:53:05 AM
He's. Not. A. Journalist.
What's sad is that he's more more fearless and accurate in his reporting than most journalists are.
He's. Not. A. Journalist.
What's sad is that he's more more fearless and accurate in his reporting than most journalists are.
Um, how can something be accurate and unfair?
Posted by
Trevor Butterworth
3/6/2009 11:00:51 AM
If the Daily Show's assault on CNBC lacks context, and fails to give the other side, and yet is "spot on" - then it's "spot...
If the Daily Show's assault on CNBC lacks context, and fails to give the other side, and yet is "spot on" - then it's "spot on" period. If the context shows the Daily Show engaging in cherrypicking, then it's deceptive, and not "spot on." I fail to see how it can be both unfair and not inaccurate at the same time.
A memo from Alexander Pope might be useful for clarifying the method and value of satire:
"Law can pronounce judgment only on open facts; morality alone can pass censure on intentions of mischief; so that for secret calumny, or the arrow flying in the dark, there is no public punishment left, but what a good writer inflicts."
Vapid business and finance reporting - busnotainment, finonsense - deserves a mighty, mighty bollicking. Cramer et al deserve the stocks for all their lame stock advice. The Daily Show met this need with good writing.
Page 1 of 1
View all Romenesko feedback
|
|
