I think Jon Stewart summarized some of the points from the essays last night when he talked about how polarized these talk shows have become.

I think that Jon Stewart's point is extremely valid. The media is intended to bring clarity to the average citizen and show them what is really going on and what each candidate will do if he or she is elected. Instead, shows like Crossfire get into heated debates about nothing and keep reiterating that one side is liberal and the other is conservative without actually saying anything. He's right that networks like CNN have an obligation to their viewers that they are not holding up and it seems like media is on the side of the politicians. I think that this is more of a problem with our bipartisan government than it is with how people receive news.

I believe that that Jon Stewart's critique of the media is very valid. He argues that the media, more specifically shows like Crossfire, have an obligation to their viewers to give them information and instead they are having theatrical, empty debates. I think the increase in the internet's popularity worries some networks like CNN and in response, CNN pressures its shows to increase their ratings. With the pressure of increased ratings comes more focus on what makes its shows popular and less focus on the actual topics discussed in its shows. This shift in political show's focus is what Jon Stewart was critiquing.

I also agree with Jon Stewart's view that the media is detrimental. His points are extremely valid, and he rightly argues that CNN and informational stations have turned to "theatrical" broadcasting styles. This shift from informational debate to theatrical performance models the rise of online journalism, its informal style translating to other styles of media, like television.

I agree with Jon Stewart's critique of the media. Jon Stewart uses Crossfire as an example of one of many news sources that have become focused on "theatre" instead of presenting the facts to the public. This view connects to the readings we did last night and the rise in online journalism because the competition that comes with having multiple news sources leads to theatrics. The news stations are using these theatrics to try and draw in viewers, but they are hurting America by not providing the public with news.

I also agree with Jon Stewart. His points are very similar to those of the readings; both talk about how the media is focusing more on getting viewers and keeping them watching than informing the public. On the other hand, I don't think that quite applies to a debate show since the only place to watch the show is on the tv. Recorded versions placed on the internet wouldn't differ at all, so there would be no competition.

I think that Jon Stewart's critique of the media is valid. He thinks that because the media is so divided, it turns into a competition which hides the original goal of the media- to inform viewers. I don't think that he has a journalistic responsibility to provide unbiased news coverage because he is a comedian. Although his show is entertaining and can provide some insight into news stories and politics, it shouldn't be anybody's main news source.

Jon Stewart's point, although valid, does not apply to all forms of media. Yes, the Crossfire seems like one of the forms of theatrical media, especially with the actions of the hosts, who were clearly more interested in Stewart's humor than his honest point of view on the presidential debate, but I feel as if with some other segments on CNN, the viewers do get real feedback on what's going on with the elections. His problem is with Crossfire, and I agree with him, because based on this clip, the Crossfire seems much more intent on getting laughs from the audience than updating them on the elections.

Because of the drastic increase in the availability of televisions and other sources of media in the past decade, the number of news shows has also increased significantly. As a result, getting an audience to regularly watch your show means you must make it stand out from the others, which is often counterproductive to the initial purpose of the show as shows become more about the theatrics and creating controversy for attention. “Crossfire” is a great example that fits this mold, as the anchors seemed more interested in getting John Stewart to be funny than in talking about issues of substance. As media becomes more readily available, it seems to rely more and more on cheap tricks. I think that Stewart’s description and condemnation of the media is accurate and that he is right when he explains that sources of news have responsibilities to the public that they are currently failing to uphold.
To me, it seems like he is quick to blame news shows on networks like CNN, but his show--though on Comedy Central--is still a source of news for much of America’s youth. When watching a comedic show like “The Daily Show,” people aren’t always consciously thinking about it as purely being for entertainment purposes. Instead, his comments seep into peoples’ perceptions of reality. Therefore, Stewart should also be held accountable for upholding such principals of integrity because his show has a similar influence on a crowd as “Crossfire” has.

I think that Jon Stewart's critique of the media is valid as shows like crossfire are more theatre than debate. I think that it is true that the media is filled with a lot of fluff. However I think that when people watch shows like Jon Stewart's, they are not looking for something that it is all news as they recognize it as comedy.