Focusing on the press here... I don't see that the media understands its responsibilities as a counterbalance to its rights.  Is this in the Constitution?  I think it is implied.  In that era (late 18th century), rights accrued from a common duty.  See, for example, Thomas More.  This is built into the First Amendment (and the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Amendments — guns, search/seizure, jury trials, and more I'm sure.)  

Going back further, the Crown granted licenses for publishers it considered friendly.  The American Revolution removed the requirement that the press be an organ of the state, but it retained the duty and responsibility for fair reporting.  

What I see today is a focus on "rights" — it's a person's right to ____ (fill in the blank) — with no recognition of the corresponding responsibility.  This ranges far beyond the media.  The question becomes, does the media reflect society?  Or is the media the leader?  The answer is important because it helps to find a way out of this mess. 

 

Could you  imagine all the crap that Thomas Paine would have gotten if he was around during the internet days?

Focusing on the press here. . . I don't see that the media understands its responsibilities as a counterbalance to its rights.  Is this in the Constitution?  I think it is implied.  In that era (late 18th century), rights accrued from a common duty.  See, for example, Thomas More.  This is built into the First Amendment (and the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Amendments — guns, search/seizure, jury trials, and more I'm sure. )  

Going back further, the Crown granted licenses for publishers it considered friendly.  The American Revolution removed the requirement that the press be an organ of the state, but it retained the duty and responsibility for fair reporting.  

What I see today is a focus on "rights" — it's a person's right to ____ (fill in the blank) — with no recognition of the corresponding responsibility.  This ranges far beyond the media.  The question becomes, does the media reflect society?  Or is the media the leader?  The answer is important because it helps to find a way out of this mess.  

 

I read his statement somewhat differently: elected officials and media, by virtue of their positions of leadership, power, authority, and influence, have duties to conduct themselves in a more considered manner, and they have largely shirked their responsibilities. 

Probably was his intent, but I'm not at all sure it will be construed that way.

I do agree that those you have mentioned are certainly part of the problem, and that they should be held to higher standards as constitutional actors (the press is well reflected in the Constitution).

I just do not want the message to be that we are all ok, and simply being led astray by these particular institutional actors.      

I read his statement somewhat differently: elected officials and media, by virtue of their positions of leadership, power, authority, and influence, have duties to conduct themselves in a more considered manner, and they have largely shirked their responsibilities. 

I read his statement somewhat differently: elected officials and media, by virtue of their positions of leadership, power, authority, and influence, have duties to conduct themselves in a more considered manner, and they have largely abrogated their responsibilities. 

I was a bit disappointed that Stewart concluded by appearing to lay most, if not all, of the blame upon elected officials in Washington and the cable TV media.   

...*laughing*...there is photographic evidence...

our friend Ang.

Dio will argue about Joe being a communist.

Who do you call when you're lost in D.C. and need a dinner recommendation and directions?  Someone in the middle of Wyoming, of course.  Sit as far away from the driver as possible, in the trunk or cargo area is good idea... this makes communication between Wyoming—Personwiththephone—Driver really interesting.
PS— the sushi was good! :-)