To some extent I'm inclined to agree (though it may not be precisely what he meant) that a topic like Obamacare is too complex to make the TV news a good medium for analyzing it in depth. Maybe people just need to realize that if they want to have an opinion on a topic like that which is worth a damn, they'll have to put some actual effort into reading up on it - and that if they can't be bothered to do that, it would behoove them to shut their pieholes.

Of course, if what he meant was that his channel should not even strive to give an accurate picture of Obamacare, then yeah, you have grounds for being offended.

Anyway, what you note about Jon Stewart is pretty much the problem - that many people seem to think that just because most TV media sucks, they might as well take Jon Stewart as main source because at least he's funny, and he tells them what they want to hear. While on the whole NBC and certainly CNN may be still a better and more representative source of news.

Jon Stewart is on Comedy Channel (or was last time I checked). As is Stephen Colbert. That should tell you something. The answer to shitty TV journalism is not turning to comedians for your news.

Yeah, it's true that this "gerrymandering" of media spheres as Greg's NYT article called it is allowing people to get away unharmed (at least unharmed on their own side, which increasingly is all that they need to care about) with astonishingly stupid things. But the punditry problem is definitely present on MSNBC and other liberal channels just as it is on Fox News.