He didn't actually get a chance to make any detailed comments. He only got to say that the show was bad, that the commentators/debaters were supporting the powers that be, and that they were not doing real journalism. No examples or anything.
Now, it's great that he did this. But I'm surprised there's such a fuss being made over it -- since the "attack" was so mild and general.
==========================
You know how it is.
When you're starving, even a threadbare meal tastes fantastic.
Stewart's an excellent comedian and should be applauded. I enjoy the "Daily Show" which is unique and, I think, provides us with an intriguing model for how to engage in close quarter combat with our foes within the limits of the current media-space.
Even so, it is as you say: he didn't get a chance to say much beyond a simple, repeated declaration that journalism in general, and "Crossfire" in particular, sucks with hurricane-like force; helping our enemies rather than giving us what we need.
The thing is, even this basic assertion is so rarely made on the air or in print that it seems, to get King Jamesy for a moment, like unto a miracle - a pulling of infinite loaves and fishes from a finite bag.
So we're stunned into admiration.
In a culture less starved for the taste of the real, this wouldn't be worth commenting on. But here we are.
.d.