Rec if you think Jon Stewart deserves a Pulitzer!!

[JFN1]

for his interview with Jim Cramer (watch it here - uncut! - if you haven't seen it: http://thisweekwithbarackobama.blogspot.com/2009/03/jon-stewart-daily-show-vs-jim-cramer.html).

Jon Stewart is, I believe, the last honest journalist in our country. Yes, Kieth and Rachael do a fantastic job, but they are held back by MSNBC - notice on Kieth last night he didn't even mention this extremely newsworthy event. They do their best, but are chained to corporate interests. I don't think Jon cares one whit for corporate interests, as demonstrated by his fearless vigilance.

A Pulitzer, a Peabody, a Nobel - or all of the above. It is time for some serious recognition to come his way for his service to the truth, to humanity, and to our country.

BTW - I'm taking bets. How long before Jim Cramer loses his show (think Crossfire)? My bet? Two weeks...

[lapfog_1]

1. 6 months...

takes that long for the ratings drop to be deemed "unrecoverable" and for lawyers to void the contract with
Cramer.

Of course, that's only if Cramer isn't indicted for manipulating the markets as a hedge fund manager which
he confessed to in a taped interview.

[JFN1]

3. It only took about two weeks for Crossfire to go off the air

That's what I'm basing my bet on. But I also agree with you...

[lapfog_1]

8. I know in the dim mists of time it seemed like only 2 weeks.

but the time lag between the Jon Stewart appearance and Crossfire being canceled was, in fact, 8 months.

[MADem]

9. No it didn't. And that show folded partly because the principals had some

lucrative overseas gigs (foreign elections) to run.

[graywarrior]

42. Your sig line

LOL!

[MADem]

63. Yours, too!!! Heh heh!!!! nt

[MADem]

2. Has he taken a job with a NEWSPAPER?

The Pulitzer Prize is for newspapers.... http://www.pulitzer.org/

[JFN1]

12. I meant for journalism...

[MADem]

15. The prize is for NEWSPAPER journalists.

Not for on-air current events comedy talent.

They've expanded to give an online award, but the (print) medium is the message....

[Shakespeare]

29. Pulitzer is a PRINT ONLY award.

Peabody or Polk awards are given for broadcast journalism.

[wroberts189]

33. Not just for newspapers ..books as well and Jon wrote one.

http://www.pulitzer.org/files/entryforms/letbbn08.pdf

[MADem]

He didn't write one this year--and a compilation of "funny shit" isn't really

"literature" or anything even close to that.

He wasn't considered a contender in the year his book came out, and he shouldn't have been. It was a topical bit of business, not a lasting tome.

The question is just silly. Why not ask "Should Jon Stewart be awarded an Olympic Gold Medal?" for all the relevance it has.

[MADem]

76. He didn't write one this year--and a compilation of "funny shit" isn't really

"literature" or anything even close to that.

He wasn't considered a contender in the year his book came out, and he shouldn't have been. It was a topical bit of business, not a lasting tome.

The question is just silly. Why not ask "Should Jon Stewart be awarded an Olympic Gold Medal?" for all the relevance it has.

[Donnachaidh]

4. oh please...

A pulitzer? :rofl: Celebrity hero worship at it's finest. :sarcasm:

[MADem]

7. Especially since he doesn't even write for a NEWSPAPER...but look at how many recs he gets anyway!NT

[Career Prole]

54. I have a feeling if you're familiar with the quote I use

for my signature you might agree that if Mr. Pulitzer was still with us he may indeed not have found it fitting for Jon to get the print journalism prize that carries his name, just as you say...but he might well have given a kick and a rec just for the hell of it. ;)

[JFN1]

16. I don't worship the man

but his courageous actions. I don't actually watch the Daily Show (or Colbert) regularly. And we could do worse, in the hero department...just ask Republicans, they know...

[Donnachaidh]

19. oh come on

firstly, it's a JOURNALISM award. He's NEVER even claimed to be a journalist. In fact, I think a nomination like this would have HIM laughing his ass off.

Let's cheapen the Pulitzer by sending in a nomination for an entertainer who is a very nice guy, but NOT a journalist.

Sure - he's doing a good job. Put him in for a Peabody.

[Donnachaidh]

24. methinks you doth protest too much.

Don't worship him? Yeahhhhh. So what other entertainers should be nominated for a pulitzer (your opinion).

America has a SICKNESS, which is called Hero Worship.

[Autonomy]

40. overreact much?

Stewart's interview was the hardest hitting piece of journalism I've seen in a long, looooong time. And, yes, I see a lot.

[jhrobbins]

60. I think JFN1 used that panoply of awards to represent the notion that John

had excelled in this particular endeavor. I don't understand the need to harp on this, especially after a mea culpa was proffered.

[wroberts189]

38. Jon is a hero and nobody here is bowing down in worship. nt

[dem629]

5. LMFAO.

First it was comparisons to Murrow and Cronkite and now...a Pulitzer?

Holy fuck. Our educational system is in worse shape than I thought.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Seriously. I love me some Jon Stewart, but let's keep it all in perspective.

[dem629]

14. Some people around here have totally lost their minds.

The poster above is correct: It's nothing more than celeb worship, combined with a complete lack of perspective. And people wonder why there's a joke about certain people getting their "news" from Comedy Central. :shrug:

[stray cat]

6. I like Jon - but a Pulitzer: Not so much

[steelmania75]

10. Jon and his team are the only ones who report the news today

News is susposed to be questioning what something/someone is doing, and trying to get answers. If the answers tell you that this someone/something is doing something bad, then it must be stopped. For example, no one questioned going into Iraq, probably because of the 9/11 attacks and the US wanted to bomb the heck outta something after years of peace from the Clinton Administration.

[stray cat]

70. Actually it was an interview more than investigative reporting - but Jon speaks the truth

However, speaking the truth isn't sufficient for a nobel prize. Its a little more selective than that - and it should be.

[dkf]

11. I'll give him a pulitzer if he grills Bill Clinton like that.

A lot of the bad law that created this situation came from him.

I want to know why he signed those bills and if he regrets it.

I also want to know if Bill Clinton understands why laws like Glass Steagall were on the books in the first place.

[MADem]

17. I'd wager if you examine those bills, they were typical bullshit omnibus loads of crapola

...like every fucking bill that goes up is.

You want to do something like, oh, provide heating fuel for elderly people in cold climates who have fixed incomes and are below the poverty line? Sure, you can do that, if you also approve an expenditure to repair an old whorehouse and call it historical in some rep's district, or buy a stockpile of body bags from the company that makes them in some other rep's district.

Sometimes, it's "We won't pass this unless you sign that."

Here's the facts of the matter, it's CONGRESS that "makes" law. The President signs it. If he vetoes everything that comes to his desk, the accusation is that he is rejecting the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.

Pork, lard, bullshit...call it what you will. GHWB's "quid pro quo" is alive and well in 21st Century Washington, D.C.

[dkf]

18. Yeah but signing a bill that feeds the homeless in exchange for

a system that collapses our economy? In hindsight it might have been a bad exchange no?

If Bill Clinton wants to explain this as a quid pro quo he had to accept I would like to hear that too.

[MADem]

20. It's so easy to look back with an omniscient eye, isn't it?

But go back in time, and the headline isn't "Clinton averts a disaster a decade and a half in the future" you see.

The headline reads "That fat, cheeseburger eating BASTARD Clinton refuses to feed the goddamn homeless, the heartless, closeted rightwing prick!!! He vetoed the fucking BILL, the miserable fellatio addict!! Yes, he's a BUM!! And he's SOUTHERN!!!! Oh, and, er...DLC, DLC, DLC!!!!!!"

And the people leading that charge? Many of them now populate this very forum.

Anyone who thinks that Bill Clinton knowingly put his pen to paper with a view that this is what would come of it has profound reality issues. There were also opportunities for necessary oversight in the intervening eight years that were eschewed by the Bush Administration, and I'd say that just a little bit of the "irrational exuberance" deserves to splash on those eight years, as well. Never mind the insane spending, the running up of the national credit card after Clinton balanced the fucking books.

I think people who blame Clinton for Bush's eight years of hellish lack-of-leadership need a bit of a course correction.

[dkf]

21. Bill Clinton reversed a law that was created because the country

experienced a depression similar to the situation we are experiencing now.

Doesn't it kind of make sense that reversing this fix would open you to the same situation?

He was the second fool...and shame on us.

[MADem]

23. Again, you're accusing him of seeing the consequences over a decade later.

I submit that you are "reaching."

You're also giving George Bush a pass. What, it's OK that a GOP legislature and executive branch were asleep at the switch for the bulk of the last eight years? No "tsk tsk" for them from you?

[jhrobbins]

61. dkf wrote...

If Bill Clinton wants to explain this as a quid pro quo he had to accept I would like to hear that too.


I'm betting that Clinton feels absolutely no moral or civil duty to explain himself to you or most anybody else. That man has lived a lifetime of explanations in one short decade - some good, some a little thin and some coerced, but he doesn't have to do that anymore and I , for one, am happy to leave him alone. Course, I'm not as morally upright and superior as most of his critics no doubt are.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

48. I heard something nice yesterday,

and your post reminded me of it (this is totally off-topic).

The Defense of Marriage Act, something Clinton should NEVER have signed - I lost everything I had for him when he signed it - is possibly - possibly - going to be repealed by President Obama.

That would make me so happy, and I'm not even gay. But that bill sucked. So did that Bill when he signed it..................

[Catch22Dem]

22. A Nobel Prize???

You'd have a hard time finding someone who appreciated Jon Stewart more than me, but come on. Let's board the reality train.

[truedelphi]

34. Considering who has been given a Nobel Prize in the past,

I would have no problem with Stewart receiving it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

49. Uhhhhhh.............

[truedelphi]

73. That's exactly the person I was thinking of

And I shudder to think of him (Great graphic, BTW)

[cutlassmama]

25. The CEO of Cramer's show abruptly resigned after the interview

I'll give it a couple of weeks, at most, to go off the air.

Stewart nailed his balls to the wall.

[NYCGirl]

27. Do you have a link for that? Can't find it in any news.

His show has a CEO? I thought TV shows have a producer.

EDIT: Found it. The CEO of the website street.com resigned, not Cramer's show, Mad Money.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. I'd be more than happy to see him with an Emmy.

I will say the interview was a true piece of art. It was very well executed.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Nah - Clearly Katie "Navy SEALs RAWK!" Couric deserves it more...

for asking a woman even stupider than she is what newspapers she reads.

[opihimoimoi]

30. He Needs some major recognition for sure

KnR

[wroberts189]

31. God ..why are so many critcizing the OP?

Are you people so perfect? Why be such jerks?

I did not know a Pulitzer was print only either and the main thrust of the post was about how good a job he did.

KNR...

[Donnachaidh]

35. so send him a box of chocolates or a pair of tickets to a ball game

Jeez -- calling people JERKS because they actually KNOW who should be nominated for a Pulitzer? Oh, so sorry, we pointed out the *lack of skills* of some people. :sarcasm: :eyes:

[wroberts189]

37. There is a nice way to correct someone and a wrong way.

Obviously the shoe fit well.

[Ladyhawk]

75. Gotta agree. DU is a fucking snake pit. People who post here too much have lost their way. nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

65. Agreed

Reading the posts, it seems like Donnachaidh has something personal against the person who wrote the OP. She can't stand that someone doesn't know what a Pulitizer is awarded for. Maybe it's time to chill out a bit, eh?

[Ladyhawk]

74. "Are you people so perfect? Why be such jerks?"

1. Because this is an Internet forum
2. Because this is DU

I don't know why I keep coming to this place. It's like a bad addiction.

I really hate the way people tend to behave on Internet forums (including myself), but I can never stay away from them for very long. Jesus, I wish I could.

On edit: I'd recommend this thread twice, despite the OP's confusion regarding awards, just to stick it in the face of the flame baiters. I'm no expert on awards, either. I just wish there was a way to express my thanks to someone who did a damn fine job of taking on CNBC and Jim Cramer.

I don't hero-worship them, but I have a helluva a lot of respect for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who seem to take turns topping each other when it comes to bringing down our crappy media.

[sce56]

32. Jon is great but we need the approriate award and Pulitzer is not the one!

Now a Peabody award would be nice maybe some sort of Presidential award! As for Cramer he needs a
"Laugh-In" Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award

[Wile E Coli]

36. Stewart/"The Daily Show" already has a Peabody

from their reporting on the debacle in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecision_2000

[bleever]

45. Welcome to DU, Wile E Coli.

Great screen name.

[Richd506]

47. LOL! Good to see people using the "Don't tase me bro" parody I made up

[bleever]

53. Do you have a copy of yours?

I made this one, with the electrical symbols at the mouth and tail.

Edit: saw yours on your MySpace page. That's a good one too. Great minds thinking alike.

[sarcasmo]

39. Truth to Power. He should at least be nominated.

[ClusterFreak]

41. I rec'd and I agree he deserves one....but...

...who could say what Stewart would do if, completely hypothetically, say a Comedy Central 'fake news' colleague of his was interviewed on another network, and the interviewer exposed this colleague as a fraud, or complicit in some way in some underhanded perhaps immoral activity?

What would you do? Or I?

I love Jon and I agree that he probably is the most fearless and the most honest journalist (even though he's just a "comedian" who hosts a "variety show" as Cramer dismissively described him on the Today show) in America today - at least in the so-called MSM. But he also called out CNBC and Cramer because he could. He doesn't work for G.E. Sometimes it's just that simple.

[Tommy_J]

43. Rec 58.

Thanks John

[90-percent]

44. Keith's corporate orders

I would like to suggest the possibility that Keith didn't mention this incident because Rachel did, immediately following him Friday night.

Perhaps because Rachel and Keith are such buds that they have a certain amount of internal cooperation with what will be on their shows.

It does kind of suck when Rachel covers the exact same stuff you just learned from Keith. This would make her show redundant and less fresh.

Rachel did not appear to have corporate scripting influencing her coverage.

Keith and Rachel do an excellent job of walking that corporate media tite rope. They must have negotiated some kind of kick ass contracts to be able to cover what they do!

-90% Jimmy

[Tx4obama]

46. How about a

Walter Cronkite award.
Katie Curic just won one for her interview exposing Palin.

[Demeter]

50. Or At Least a Pizza!

[wroberts189]

56. Haha ..very funny ..pizza looks yummy nt

[happygoluckytoyou]

51. REC IF YOU THINK JIM CRAMER IS AN ENEMA OF THE STATE ! !

[CLANG]

52. How long before he is in prison?

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. I got real nostalgic. That's the way I remembered journalism use to be.

[pam4water]

57. Dunno CNBC has nothgin going for it. Who are they goin to replace him with? Any real

journalist has long since gone bust. And it take years to learn that stuff. Any who comes up through the corporate News same shit different hair style. I meant the only way to fix CNBC is to go off the air. They could try and higher all of WSJ staff minus the editorial hacks. But they probably have faces made for the radio. And face it the average American view is going to tune in for that.

[MADem]

64. Only three hundred thousand people watch that station regularly

And most of them are broke, now, so it's all pointless.

Funny--a few years ago, when NBC-Universal was looking to cut costs, where did they downsize? MSNBC. They got rid of the studios in Secaucus and made the MSNBC people move to the city. They cut their news reports down and put on prison lockup specials. They almost got the ax entirely.

Funny what a difference a few years makes...!

[pam4water]

77. Doesn't NBC own the weather channel and too and didn't the program on

global climate change just get axed?

[MADem]

80. I don't know. NBC Universal owns a lot of crap.

They play all sides of the street, just like Fox, whose "entertainment arm" (Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc.) is terribly edgy and the delight of the left, while their news outlet...well, say no more.

NBC also owns MSNBC, which is the answer to Fox News. It's all so convoluted nowadays, with ABC in bed with Disney and CBS chumming up with CNN...impossible to keep up. I won't even try to sort out the assorted radio holdings and how they're interconnected.

[Mira]

58. I'll recommend it if you promise you send this thread to JStewart.

Just kidding.
:kick: and recommend

[lonestarnot]

59. Hells yeah!

:thumbsup: K & R

[Baikonour]

62. Pulitizer? No. He doesn't do print media or music.

However, he does deserve an Edward R. Murrow award.

[wroberts189]

66. Actually ...he did in fact write a book ... :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart#Books

[pacalo]

67. How about the Edward R. Murrow Award?

Or Nobel Peace Prize -- after all, he has blown the cover off a Wall Street scam which has possibly thrown a lot of viewers' savings down the drain.

[SlingBlade]

68. You Bet He Should K&R

[Career Prole]

69. In Pulitzer's own words...

"Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery.
A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." --Joseph Pulitzer, May 1904

While Pulitzer may not have agreed that Jon qualified himself for the prize which bears his name he most certainly would have seen to it that the interview was reported in his St. Louis Post-Dispatch (unlike the intentional shunning by MSNBC's corporate management) and I'd bet he would have offered Jon a job, to boot.

[bluesmail]

71. His writing team definitely does. eom

[sendittozoom]

72. "Fearless vigilance?!" What was so fearless?

You think he went out on a limb here? Where was he when Cramer made that statement in 2008? So he waited until handbaskets are raining from the sky? Wow, how "fearless" of him!

[UTUSN]

78. Too late!1 I'm #149 late after the 24-hr limit!1 n/t

[jarnocan]

79. me too but still so cool kickable