It makes my heart glad to know that there are some people on TV who understand the real purpose of journalism in a democracy.

And then I realize that I could probably fit all of them comfortably in my living room.

Oh, well. Hooray for the good ones.

Democracy is like communism. It does not exist in the real world, and if it did, we'd probably all be really really unhappy lot.

Anyway, yeah, a free press is a good thing, and John Stewart is frequently a smart and funny man. What the hell does he want, a medal?

Fantastic clips.

2: Well after watching those clips, I would say the last thing he would want would be a medal. He even cited his own argument with McCain as an example of the poor journalism his show frequently targets. His comparison of TDS to an editorial cartoon was spot-on, I believe, and he begged (as he often does) to not be taken too seriously.

My girlfriend loves to watch America's Next Top Model. I asked her why, and she said something about those silly model girls getting their comeuppance on national television. Of course, that seems to be the point of the show; making viewers feel like they can look down on these girls. Sometime around 1994 our entire news media turned into this. It seems like more and more stories are about "look at this person, feel better about yourself for not being them" Runaway bride, diaper astronaut, OJ, and the mother of them all, Lewinsky.

Stewart and TDS aren't targeting unscrupulous politicians, they're targeting the lazy ass news media for not targeting unscrupulous politicians. That's why it always kills me when people on the right dismiss TDS as being some liberal propaganda outlet. It just happens to currently be the case that a ridiculously corrupt, right-of-center government is the beneficiary of the incompetence of the news media in this country, and TDS is pointing it out.

Off-topic, but relevant to the earlier post about pundits admitting when they're wrong, I'm awed by the intellectual integrity shown by some of the professors in this NYT article on the 2nd Amendment. Example:

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

...The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”

relevant to the earlier post about pundits admitting when they're wrong

Huh? Which post, GB?

As to your threadjack, yes, Tribe's change in position is interesting. I haven't been foloowing, but it seems consistent with a general repulsion with big government. It wouldn't surprise me if he's also changing his mind about the expanded reading of the Commerce Clause, just as a way to keep a check on the federal government screwing with EVERYTHING.

Jon, do you think you're the only Jon out there?

Are you dissing Stewart? Why?

This post.

it seems consistent with a general repulsion with big government

It also seems consistent with actually reading the Constitution, instead of viewing it as a starting point for spinning fantasies about what one might wish it actually said. Only a law professor could say with a straight face that "the right of the people" refers to a right not of the people, but of the states.

GB, thanks for the link but wasn't that post about pundits NOT admitting when they were wrong?

I agree that "actually reading the Constitution" it could do wonders for political discussion, as "originalist" thinking and research is what appears to underlie the change in thinking about the Second Amendment. But there does seem to be a related thread of ensuring greater protection from federal interference with rights generally.

Without getting into things too finely, I am not a Larry Tribe scholar, but the Constitution was crafted to protect both individuals and states from the federal government. Only with the 14th Amendment was it specifically considered to protect individuals from their state governments.

Here's an article that summarizes the changing scholarship more completely than the Times did.

GB, thanks for the link but wasn't that post about pundits NOT admitting when they were wrong?

Right, and this post is about people who are admitting when they were wrong. Same issue, different outcomes.