> I would like to see someone make the case (which I'm sure
> exists but I can't figure out) _why_, assuming my points
> above, Stewart's show is still socially of worth.
I think that's a pretty high bar.
# "TV is called a 'medium' because it's neither rare nor well-done"
I'm not sure I can tell you why *anything* is "socially of worth" (I guess that disqualifies me for being "Commissar Of Socially Worthy Things" come the revo, eh?), but I can tell you that if nothing else, I don't see anyone other than Stewart (and his disciple Colbert) who take a critical look at the failings of the media to to perform what must be the most base of their job: tracking and questioning the words and deeds of our elected officials. That they are able to find enough of what are often the most absurd and extreme examples -- enough even to make them "funny" -- on a daily basis, should show that it's a 'target rich environment' ...
It's not a new story -- I remember recently re-reading All The President's Men and being discouraged that all these journalists were working hard to crack open this big story ... except they were each individually working on it *and against each other* in search of ratings which would lead to the kind of the support they needed to continue their investigations.
It's kind of like how the blackjack dealer's win percentage goes up with the more people who sit at the table, because the players are not just playing against the dealer, they are also playing against each other.
Ok, I'm done.
/jordan