Unexpected news.

Apparently they did take Jon Stewart seriously. The New York Times reports that CNN has cancelled Crossfire:

[New CNN president Jonathan] Klein specifically cited the criticism that the comedian Jon Stewart leveled at “Crossfire” when he was a guest on the program during the presidential campaign. Mr. Stewart said that ranting partisan political shows on cable were “hurting America.”
Mr. Klein said last night, “I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart’s overall premise.” He said he believed that especially after the terror attacks on 9/11, viewers are interested in information, not opinion.

They’ve also gotten rid of Tucker Carlson, who is being courted by MSNBC.
My first reaction was: Wow! After reading the article, I’m a bit more contemplative. It’s hard to tell from this brief report what the real story is here, but I suspect the “information, not opinion” line is probably a crucial one. Interesting, though, that the Fox News tagline is “we report, you decide.”
There’s a bit more about this Klein fellow here and here. He majored in history at Brown, and got started in TV working as a producer for the ABC affiliate in Providence. Most famous recently for a comment about the credibility of pajama-clad bloggers, he’s apparently not a beloved figure in the blogosphere.
I’m sure this move will result in a flurry of complaints about liberal media bias. On the flip side, according to the Times‘s Paul Krugman, CNN is part of a right-wing conspiracy:

Throughout the rest of his remarks and a question-and-answer session, Krugman made several surprising statements, including that CNN was more dangerous than Fox News because people hadn’t figured out CNN also was part of the conservative movement.

Now that’s a remark that makes me think that “information, not opinion” might not be such a terrible idea. Why is it that, on both sides, there is a tendency to blame public expressions of opinions contrary to one’s own on conspiracies?
Okay, I’m completely exhausted and fearful that this entry is a bit incoherent and poorly thought-out. But I leave you with the news.


5 thoughts on “Unexpected news.

  1. Because he thinks that “terror attacks” is poor English. The OED, however, lists several acceptable combination words using terror as an attribute (e.g. terror-act, terror-novel, terror-bombing). Citations on “terror act” go back as far as the 1940s, indicating that Scottoway is yet railing against a usage which was commonplace many decades before his birth.

  2. The problem with “terror attack” is that it implies
    that “terror” is what’s doing the attacking.
    The phrase “terror act” seems more credible, but
    only references to “terrorism” or “terrorist” properly
    identify the linkage between the crime and its
    political motives. (A child, after all, could
    commit a simple act of terror.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s