Stewart v. Maddow: The Thrilla Was Vanilla
Stewart and Maddow—not Stewart versus Maddow
Why are so many discussions labeled by headline writers as battles—who won? Why the hype? I know it's supposed to "sell."
Granted that editors have only seconds to write a headline, usually without reading the entire article, a reader is either turned on or off by what is often a disconnect. And then reads the article in that context!
Did we listen to and watch the same discussion as the writer of the article? Yes. Are we as intelligent and educated as the writer of the article? Yes. Did we come to the same conclusions about the discussion? No! Why then do we persist in casting things in an adversarial way?
I thought that the discussion was very interesting—perhaps a bit disjointed at times because of commercial interruption—too much hype before the interview, and too many expectations. Two intelligent people chatted about various topics, didn't agree on many points, but made their points more intelligible. Journalism and comedy are not coming at events and issues from the same perspective—and that's the way it should be! Both Rachel and Jon are right!
Nov 13 2010 - 11:20pm