I continue to lose faith in the news media. I think they have forgotten the difference between current events and in-depth reporting. They, as media companies, don't seem to understand that different communication vehicles should be used for different types of media or information. I have a little theory about it? Then I'll get to why I like and would recommend watching The Daily Show.

So I find that there are a couple different communication mediums: words/text/copy, photography and video. You then communicate using different methods like traditional means of: newspapers, magazines, books, TV and the newer online medium of: blogging, twittering, photo galleries, streaming videos, digital downloads, YouTube, Hulu and social networking everything you find. What amazes me is that major media networks don't know how to differentiate the mediums, methods and content nor how to generate revenue from it.

I'm going on an unplanned tangent here, so I'll try to bring it back to the show here soon, but you'll see what I mean. Why is it that some TV news, newspapers and magazines are failing? Because much of their revenue model was based off of ad revenue, which the amount a company could charge for that advertising was/is based off of the number of people who view the content, or what's called "reach." No longer was media charged for or purchased for it's quality. Most news became measured on if it was the latest breaking story, not whether the story even is justified being told. Our news was no longer based off of investigative reporting, that's too expensive to generate and takes too long to put together. I think we have "Reality" programing to help thank for the demise. It's just cheaper to produce.

But if you are a TV show, newspaper or print magazine... you will lose to the Internet every time. There just is nothing faster, so if newspapers, magazines and TV are going to compete with the internet on "current events" or "happenings" they will never be as fast as online media. Online media, where the content is given away for free will end up generating more revenue off of advertising than traditional media going forward. Especially as media now is mobile with cell phones and laptops.

The level of production for much of the media has become hollow. I mean there is no depth to it, it just sits there looking at you with simplicity and basic face value. It is either straight up information or pure mindless entertainment. News media has become too sensitive and worries too much about making people feel uncomfortable. You have media outlets that pander to the left, to the right and some who try to be in the middle, but it's all mindless ranting and hearsay. I think that provocation, stimulating debate, is much more desirable than ignoring sensitive issues to avoid hurting anyones feelings. But what is communicated has to informed and educated, instead of most of the mindless reporting that is being done.

Traditional media is going to have to revert back to putting out quality content, that is different or premium to that of what is available online. People or consumers will have to pay for getting the content. They will have to make money off of putting out a quality product, that engages people mentally. It's about content management. How media companies distribute and syndicate the content that is current event news for free versus quality engaging information that is paid for.

I feel it's a lot like art, for it to be truly genuine, it has to be done free of financial restraints. Or the creator, director, writer or artist has to have complete freedom, both financially and with time constraints. For something to be worthwhile of my time, it has to have something provocative, engaging and a point of view. Too much of what we see today is pretty meaningless and just about fame. I think the news media has become too driven by revenue generation, so as the revenue started dropping, old business minds found themselves in a panic, not figuring out the root of their problem.

So to bring it all back now, because I could write a whole blog on my media theory, managing content and distribution, etc. I like engaging information, that is well thought out, makes me question, I like it to be entertaining and if at all possible, I like it to have some humor and humility.

I have found that The Daily Show with John Stewart has all of these things. It's makes fun of all the dumb reporting on the cable and main news shows, it pokes fun of the total absurdity that sometimes is American Politics, yet it has a level of intellectualism not found in today's news. Jon asks hard questions, not what many consider "hard" in today's news which is usually some rude, disrespectful question, but a hard question of substance that you wish other people would ask.

When I watch the show, it's almost like an affirmation of what I think or my opinion of much of main stream media. I think because the show can mask itself or hide behind the fact it's a comedy show, allows it to take on issues that other programs can not. I often wonder if Jon Stewart is more of a comedian or a voice for much of what's troubling Americas news media. He knows what many of us want and the show gives it to us in a non-serious, entertaining, engaging, thought provoking way. I believe their is half truths to most jokes, with The Daily Show, I think it's more like 3/4's of the content rings true.

I'm sure most have heard of or watched a little bit of the Daily Show. The following are a couple clips that I think demonstrate what I'm trying to say, from the online video communication medium doing it better than anybody, Hulu, and the "TV shows" own website.

Here's the format or one of the reason's why I like the show. The beginning is where Mr. Stewart goes through different news stories from MSNBC, CNN, FOX and even the non-cable news shows of NBC sometimes and makes fun of how poor their interviews and stories really are. Here's an example of a show just a little while ago. The beginning makes fun of reporting done on Pakistan, the whole Taliban and what's going on, then makes fun of how much coverage was given to when Obama and Biden went to lunch at a Hamburger joint. Check it out:

Now Jon Stewart also has a lot of guests on the show. Sometimes they are other comedians, sometimes they are actors promoting their latest film, lots of authors, but he also has political figures. One of his most interesting and invigorating interviews was with Jim Crammer of the CNBC show Mad Money. It just felt good to watch him tear into Jim Crammer on what he does on his "news" show. Watch it and you'll see what I mean. It's still funny and Jon keeps things light, but he gets straight to the point. He could do a similar interview with most anchors of news shows. Even Brian Williams, of the nightly news of NBC could be torn to shreds. Oh now I loved to see that, and I'm a fan of Brian Williams. I guess it also has to do with accountability. The news media used to hold everybody else accountable. Now they need somebody like Jon Stewart and The Daily Show to hold them accountable, because for some reason we the viewers are not.

Here's Part 1 of the interview:

And if the first part got you engaged, here's the second part:

Oh and the final part, let's get it all people: