(originally published in Morph
Journalism. India. The Bomb.

I watched the ABC Evening News last night. I watched John Stewart last night.

One program is billed as journalism, the other as comedy.

The contrast was stark, and left me wondering about how viewers would ever be able to sort out what is truely going on in the world.

Stewart asked astute questions about our willingness to help India with its nuclear program, while denying the same help to our Pakastani alies. He then played a piece of video in which that question was put to the President. George Bush said: "India and Pakistan are different countries with different histories." Huh?

The point that the comedy show was making was that the answer made no sense. It demanded a followup - or maybe a few.

On ABC, the idea of playing a piece of video tape like that simply didn't fit the "rules." Instead, ABC showed the President playing cricket - a totally staged photo op that played like a totally staged photo op.

So, what are viewers to make of this? Is the fact that the President is blithely handing over the keys to the country's nuclear technology to India while playing cricket not newsworty? Is the simple fact that ABC doesn't make news, it covers it, so our President speaking without any coherence isn't "News," just an awkward fact that can't fit into the broadcast?

Journalism. India. The Bomb.

I watched the ABC Evening News last night. I watched John Stewart last night.

One program is billed as journalism, the other as comedy.

The contrast was stark, and left me wondering about how viewers would ever be able to sort out what is truely going on in the world.

Stewart asked astute questions about our willingness to help India with its nuclear program, while denying the same help to our Pakastani alies. He then played a piece of video in which that question was put to the President. George Bush said: "India and Pakistan are different countries with different histories." Huh?

The point that the comedy show was making was that the answer made no sense. It demanded a followup - or maybe a few.

On ABC, the idea of playing a piece of video tape like that simply didn't fit the "rules." Instead, ABC showed the President playing cricket - a totally staged photo op that played like a totally staged photo op.

So, what are viewers to make of this? Is the fact that the President is blithely handing over the keys to the country's nuclear technology to India while playing cricket not newsworty? Is the simple fact that ABC doesn't make news, it covers it, so our President speaking without any coherence isn't "News," just an awkward fact that can't fit into the broadcast?

Certainly more John Stewart isn't the answer. There's only room for so much snark in one day. But I would challenge the purveyers of mainstream journalism to answer the question: Why CAN'T a piece of video tape like that act as a sparkplug for a conversation about our nation's decision to share nuclear technology with India? Why is it that the video tape of My Pet Goat was invisible until Michael Moore brought it front and center in Fahrenheit 9/11? Certainly no media outlet had a problem replaying it once Moore "broke the story" in a documentary feature. But things in this world are moving too quickly - and viewers have a right to expect that their trusted news organizations are leading the story rather than following conflicts and crisis after they've happened.

Another simple example is Stewart's willingness to "out" the daily talking points. When Katrina damage control was in full swing, Stewart cut together a medley of Administration officials using the phrase "Blame Game" over and over again. Sure, you can say, "We knew there were talking points." But Stewart makes the point that these seemingly casual references to Democrats playing the "Blame Game" is in fact a media strategy. No other newscast "outed" this talking point strategy.

Then, when the Administration comes back out in the past few weeks and starts pointing fingers at who's to blame for Katrina, Stewart slyly reprises the "Blame Game" medley. Is this opinion or editorial? He's deconstructing the Republican media campaign - and I'm glad to see him do it.

When I first saw Stewart doing this, I thought, "It's just a matter of time before other media outlets start to deconstruct these 'created for the camera' media events (Cricket Match, "Blame Game")." But it appears not .

Why? John Stewart is funny. But his show shouldn't be the only place where viewers can see the President speaking in front of a podium. Protecting America from these images isn't fostering an informed public or the mission of journalism. It's simply turning a blind eye to what the rest of the world is seeing.

And that can't be good.