Stewart Says Media's Summit Coverage Is Disqualified For Sucking
Jon Stewart said Thursday press reporting of President Obama's healthcare summit was so bad that if he had to score it like an Olympic event, he'd disqualify the contestants for sucking.
The comedian devoted a full ten minutes to the bipartisan meeting on Thursday's "Daily Show," and was largely an equal opportunity offender.
After taking what some would consider to be a cheap shot at "Senator Tom 'Killing Abortion Doctors Might Not Be Such A Terrible Idea' Coburn," Stewart quipped moments later, "That's Senator Chuck 'If I Was Any More Liberal and Jewish I'd Have T*ts and Be Barbra Streisand' Schumer."
But much of his attack was about the media coverage, especially toward the end (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Bipartisan Health Care Reform Summit 2010|
JON STEWART: Now, obviously there was grandstanding. There was posturing but there were some really substantive points made here. And there were issues where there was great agreement on healthcare on both Democratic and Republican sides and room for negotiation. This really did have some important steps for the American people's understanding of this complex and essential issues. Or, to put it another way, media:
MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Was any progress made? Was anyone winning?
ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: Who had the best advantage so far?
ED HENRY, CNN: At least in the early -- in the first 90 minutes or so I'm not seeing any real chance for progress.
KELLY: Is any one actually winning this debate?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN: If this were sort of the Winter Olympic Games how would you score this?
STEWART: I would disqualify you for sucking.
So would I, Jon.
This summit might not have produced the fireworks the media were looking for, or the results. But those that actually watched the full meeting were treated to specifics about this issue -- especially from the Republicans present -- that so-called journalists have been avoiding since this debate began a year ago.
Maybe this is the problem with today's press: details are no longer important. What can't be expressed in a snappy soundbite is just too inconvenient.
On the other hand, it's possible media members didn't like what they saw because they weren't involved.
Perhaps if THEY'RE not part of the story, they can't find it newsworthy.