For example, Email is generally viewed to be a formal way to communicate news between two people. What happens when you get an email from some advertiser that is promoting its newest features for some item? Is that considered to be a formal way of receiving news, and furthermore can that even be called news? It is easy to see how widely you can perceive the notion of what "news" actually is sometimes, and not to mention how much more complicated the platform you view that news on makes it. If we don't even fully understand what news should be then how can you assume what appeals to someone when reporting your version of "news?" If you agree that is it hard to even understand what we call news then I can prove that John Stewart was right about the content of CNN's crossfire news and how "whishy-washy," for lack of better words, the commentators were on that show. .
John Stewart did not win because the show, Crossfire, was cancelled. If you agree that he did not win then it is easy to understand the manipulative ways of some news media. I can prove this because the way the media news industry is set up, meaning it is purely based of ratings. This gives news media outlets a motive to only appeal to what they think there audience wants to hear. In the article "Ten Years Ago Today," Daily Show executive producer Ben Karlin, was quoted saying before Stewart went on that show that he wanted to "just go on there and tell those guys off." However, I don't think Stewart really cared about those guys that much. It is clear that John Stewart generally was concerned about the quality of news citizens should get. One of his main points about the show Crossfire was that it was a "Partisian Hack," and it was hurting American in the sense that, most of those viewers are expecting informal information, but instead they are getting a bunch of debates that look more like a circus show then anything.