Rachel Maddow Clashes With Jon Stewart, Civilly, In Hour's Worth Of Interview Excerpts

"He's an entertainer she's a newscaster. If you can't see the difference it's because you don't believe there is one. But there is."

==========­==========­==========­======

I was going to say that the line between newscasting and entertainment has been blurry for years, but, in fact, when news divisions were folded into entertainment divisions at the networks, the line was rubbed out.

I don't know if you saw Maddow's interview with Stewart, but in it she describes what she does, how she approaches her job.  "How to tell the story humorously, entertainingly".  

It really isn't all that different, except that she doesn't hide from taking responsibility for her opinions as Stewart does.  

And also when she does it, when she is using humor to tell the story, it's for the integrity of the story.  To hold the audience's interest, to make understandable, about why the story is important for the viewer to know.  When he does it, when he uses humor, it's for the ultimate aggrandizement of himself.  So yes, there is a difference.

When your opinion flows through a joke, it's the joke that either works or doesn't.  You can move on to the next joke, without having to own the opinion.

I happen to like Jon Stewart tremendously, but I think he's made a huge mistake engaging with the media as he has, and entering the discussion as he has (the rally and with this interview).  It has opened the door to what the great comedians know to avoid -- Making yourself the subject, your opinions the focus.  It leads to analyzing you, your psyche, your humor, before your audience, which always loses the 'funny', the magic; it's like pulling the curtain away so that we see the wizard, and you never get that back.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost