If you had doubts about Jon Stewart’s ability to inform the public we’ve got news for you! On Tuesday the New York Times compared the Comedy Central TV anchor to the likes of Edward R. Murrow, and for some reason that’s really pissed people off. Murrow was a serious newsman who worked on both radio and television (on CBS) during the early days of its inception. He was recently brought to the forefront of Hollywood’s consciousness when George Clooney made him a primary figure in his 2005 film Good Night, and Good Luck. With that being said, does Stewart sound like the second coming of the guy? Vote in our poll and let us know what you think…

Both Murrow and the equally respected Walter Cronkite were trusted sources of information for this country and when they spoke people listened — even the government.

In 1968, Cronkite spoke out about the stalemate in the Vietnam War; a month later, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced he would not seek re-election. In 1954, Murrow criticized the “Red Scare” tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy; thereafter, McCarthy’s popularity and influence rapidly declined.

Earlier this month (December 16), Stewart brought on a panel of 9/11 first responders to “The Daily Show” to advocate for the Senate to pass the the bill pledging federal funds for those who sacrificed their health to save lives that day. Guess what? The bill was passed and a lot of people think Stewart had something to do with it. But what do you think?

Is Jon Stewart the New Edward R. Murrow?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Can Stewart be compared to such serious journalists considering his comedic overtones and his network? Can he be seen as a political force when he wants to be?

Explain why you voted the way you did below.

Source: Third Age