|Picture by Tulane Public Relations office|
This thing is just background. I read Hollander's post about Tucker Carlson's comments concerning Jon Stewart. I have mixed feelings. First, I agree that the excuse, "I'm a comedian," is a massive dodge. He participates in public discourse and the last few weeks have proven him to be a major player in such discussion.
However, I do not think his role as a political comedian places a proactive responsibility upon him in the same way it would an actual journalist. As "vanguards of democracy," it is the journalists job to stand in defense of the people an act with proactive investigations to prevent crises more than to report on them.
Stewart seems to have positioned himself as a whistle blower on journalist in particular, but anyone who shovels bullshit on a daily basis. I'm not sure what his role really is, but I think he exist somewhere in the realm between comedian and journalist. I see his role as reactive and possibly one of advocating. So in this sense, Carlson is write to say Stewart can't keep using the comedian excuse, but Stewart is right that proactive and preemptive coverage are not his job.
Stewart watches the watchmen, and I think that has value. Though, admittedly, I feel bad for Cramer who has become the face of a much larger problem, not only at CNBC but across the entire economic climate.